ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Validation of China's 2025 high-risk criteria in RT-PCR-confirmed chikungunya inpatients: a single-centre retrospective cohort.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChina’s 2025 clinical guideline designates age ≥ 65 years, pregnancy, and chronic comorbidity as patient categories requiring prioritized monitoring; quantitative validation in inpatients is lacking.
methodsWe conducted a single‑centre retrospective cohort including 131 consecutive RT‑PCR-confirmed patients admitted during an imported outbreak (1 August−30 September 2025). Patients meeting any high‑risk criterion were classified as high‑risk. The primary endpoint was length of stay (LOS). Secondary endpoints were prolonged hospitalisation (≥ 7 days), prolonged fever (≥ 3 days), and an acute laboratory‑injury composite at admission defined as at least one abnormality among seven routine tests. LOS was modelled using a Gamma generalised linear model (log link). Binary endpoints used robust Poisson regression adjusted for prespecified covariates. For the composite endpoint, available‑case analysis provided the primary estimate (missing D‑dimer values were treated as normal). Multiple imputation (MI; m = 10) and inverse‑probability weighting (IPW) analyses were prespecified sensitivity checks.
resultsFifty‑three of 131 patients (40.5%) were high‑risk. High‑risk status was associated with longer LOS (time ratio 1.15; adjusted mean + 0.69 days; 95% CI 0.06–0.28). Under MI, high‑risk patients had a higher probability of acute laboratory injury at admission (aRR 1.37; 95% CI 0.87–2.17; P = 0.174). Sensitivity analyses yielded attenuated and method‑dependent estimates; the IPW model gave an aRR of 1.19 (95% CI 0.88–1.61; P = 0.253), indicating sensitivity to missing‑data assumptions. No patients required ICU admission or died (0/131).
conclusionChina’s 2025 high‑risk criteria identify chikungunya inpatients with longer LOS, supporting targeted early monitoring and resource planning. The admission laboratory‑injury signal was sensitive to missing‑data modelling and should be interpreted cautiously pending external validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.