Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 392

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Risk Factors Associated With Clinical Outcomes in 323 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Hospitalized Patients in Wuhan, China

Open access
Hu, Ling, Chen, Shaoqiu, Fu, Yuanyuan, Gao, Zitong, Long, Hui, Ren, Hong-wei, Zuo, Yi, Wang, Jie, Li, Huan, Xu, Qing-bang, Yu, Wen-xiong, Liu, Jia, Shao, Chen, Hao, Jun-jie, Wang, Chuan-zhen, Ma, Yao, Wang, Zhanwei, Yanagihara, Richard, Deng, Youping·2020·Clinical Infectious Diseases

Abstract

Background: With evidence of sustained transmission in more than 190 countries, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been declared a global pandemic. Data are urgently needed about risk factors associated with clinical outcomes. Methods: A retrospective review of 323 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan was conducted. Patients were classified into 3 disease severity groups (nonsevere, severe, and critical), based on initial clinical presentation. Clinical outcomes were designated as favorable and unfavorable, based on disease progression and response to treatments. Logistic regression models were performed to identify risk factors associated with clinical outcomes, and log-rank test was conducted for the association with clinical progression. Results: Current standard treatments did not show significant improvement in patient outcomes. By univariate logistic regression analysis, 27 risk factors were significantly associated with clinical outcomes. Multivariate regression indicated age >65 years (P < .001), smoking (P = .001), critical disease status (P = .002), diabetes (P = .025), high hypersensitive troponin I (>0.04 pg/mL, P = .02), leukocytosis (>10 × 109/L, P < .001), and neutrophilia (>75 × 109/L, P < .001) predicted unfavorable clinical outcomes. In contrast, the administration of hypnotics was significantly associated with favorable outcomes (P < .001), which was confirmed by survival analysis. Conclusions: Hypnotics may be an effective ancillary treatment for COVID-19. We also found novel risk factors, such as higher hypersensitive troponin I, predicted poor clinical outcomes. Overall, our study provides useful data to guide early clinical decision making to reduce mortality and improve clinical outcomes of COVID-19.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/cid/ciaa539

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Cited by

See all 392

Metadata

Authors
Hu, L., Chen, S., Fu, Y., Gao, Z., Long, H., Ren, H.-W., Zuo, Y., Wang, J., Li, H., Xu, Q.-B., Yu, W.-X., Liu, J., Shao, C., Hao, J.-J., Wang, C.-Z., Ma, Y., Wang, Z., Yanagihara, R., & Deng, Y.
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Published
2020-05-03
Volume
71
Issue
16
Pages
2089-2098
ISSN
  • 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6591
OpenAlex
W3023831293
Cited by
392
References
11
FWCI
10.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Risk Factors Associated With Clinical Outcomes in 323 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Hospitalized Patients in Wuhan, China. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/cid/ciaa539
The paper
Hu, L., Chen, S., Fu, Y., Gao, Z., Long, H., Ren, H.-W., Zuo, Y., Wang, J., Li, H., Xu, Q.-B., Yu, W.-X., Liu, J., Shao, C., Hao, J.-J., Wang, C.-Z., Ma, Y., Wang, Z., Yanagihara, R., & Deng, Y. (2020). Risk Factors Associated With Clinical Outcomes in 323 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Hospitalized Patients in Wuhan, China. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa539

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.