Affordable Access

deepdyve-link
Publisher Website

Pitfalls when comparing COVID-19 related outcomes across studies. Lessons learnt from the ERACODA collaboration

Authors
  • Noordzij, Marlies1
  • Vart, Priya1, 1
  • Duivenvoorden, Raphaël2
  • Franssen, Casper F M1
  • Hemmelder, Marc H3
  • Jager, Kitty J4
  • Hilbrands, Luuk B2
  • Gansevoort, Ron T1
  • 1 University of Groningen, Netherlands , (Netherlands)
  • 2 Radboud University Medical Center, Netherlands , (Netherlands)
  • 3 Maastricht University Medical Center, Netherlands , (Netherlands)
  • 4 Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Netherlands , (Netherlands)
Type
Published Article
Journal
Clinical Kidney Journal
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Publication Date
Feb 02, 2021
Identifiers
DOI: 10.1093/ckj/sfab027
PMCID: PMC7929019
Source
PubMed Central
Keywords
License
Unknown

Abstract

Reported outcomes, such as incidence rates of mortality and intensive care unit admission, vary widely across epidemiological COVID-19 studies, also in the nephrology field. This variation can in part be explained by differences in patient characteristics, but also methodological aspects must be considered. In this review, we reflect on the methodological factors that contribute to the observed variation in COVID-19 related outcomes and their risk factors, that are identified in the various studies. We focus on issues that arose during the design and analysis phase of the European Renal Association COVID-19 Database (ERACODA) and use examples from recently published reports on COVID-19 to illustrate these issues.

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times