Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 655

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 76 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

COVID-19 length of hospital stay: a systematic review and data synthesis

Open access
Rees, Eleanor M., Nightingale, Emily S., Jafari, Yalda, Waterlow, Naomi R., Clifford, Samuel, B. Pearson, Carl A., Group, CMMID Working, Jombart, Thibaut, Procter, Simon R., Knight, Gwenan M.·2020·BMC Medicine

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has placed an unprecedented strain on health systems, with rapidly increasing demand for healthcare in hospitals and intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide. As the pandemic escalates, determining the resulting needs for healthcare resources (beds, staff, equipment) has become a key priority for many countries. Projecting future demand requires estimates of how long patients with COVID-19 need different levels of hospital care. Methods: We performed a systematic review of early evidence on length of stay (LoS) of patients with COVID-19 in hospital and in ICU. We subsequently developed a method to generate LoS distributions which combines summary statistics reported in multiple studies, accounting for differences in sample sizes. Applying this approach, we provide distributions for total hospital and ICU LoS from studies in China and elsewhere, for use by the community. Results: We identified 52 studies, the majority from China (46/52). Median hospital LoS ranged from 4 to 53 days within China, and 4 to 21 days outside of China, across 45 studies. ICU LoS was reported by eight studies—four each within and outside China—with median values ranging from 6 to 12 and 4 to 19 days, respectively. Our summary distributions have a median hospital LoS of 14 (IQR 10–19) days for China, compared with 5 (IQR 3–9) days outside of China. For ICU, the summary distributions are more similar (median (IQR) of 8 (5–13) days for China and 7 (4–11) days outside of China). There was a visible difference by discharge status, with patients who were discharged alive having longer LoS than those who died during their admission, but no trend associated with study date. Conclusion: Patients with COVID-19 in China appeared to remain in hospital for longer than elsewhere. This may be explained by differences in criteria for admission and discharge between countries, and different timing within the pandemic. In the absence of local data, the combined summary LoS distributions provided here can be used to model bed demands for contingency planning and then updated, with the novel method presented here, as more studies with aggregated statistics emerge outside China.

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 · 10.1186/s12916-020-01726-3

Cites

76 of 76 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 76 references

Cited by

See all 655

Metadata

Authors
Rees, E. M., Nightingale, E. S., Jafari, Y., Waterlow, N. R., Clifford, S., B. Pearson, C. A., Group, C. W., Jombart, T., Procter, S. R., & Knight, G. M.
Venue
BMC Medicine
Published
2020-09-03
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
270-270
ISSN
1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3082087988
Cited by
655
References
76
FWCI
7.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: COVID-19 length of hospital stay: a systematic review and data synthesis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s12916-020-01726-3
The paper
Rees, E. M., Nightingale, E. S., Jafari, Y., Waterlow, N. R., Clifford, S., B. Pearson, C. A., Group, C. W., Jombart, T., Procter, S. R., & Knight, G. M. (2020). COVID-19 length of hospital stay: a systematic review and data synthesis. BMC Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01726-3

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.