Objectives We investigated the impact of anemia based on admission hemoglobin (Hb) level as a prognostic risk factor for severe outcomes in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods A single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted from a random sample of 733 adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) obtained from a total of 4356 laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases who presented to the Emergency Department of Montefiore Medical Center between March–June 2020. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of in-hospital severe outcomes of COVID-19. A secondary outcome was in-hospital all-cause mortality. Results Among the 733 patients included in our final analysis, 438 patients (59.8%) presented with anemia. 105 patients (14.3%) had mild, and 333 patients (45.5%) had moderate-severe anemia. Overall, 437 patients (59.6%) had a composite endpoint of severe outcomes. On-admission anemia was an independent risk factor for all-cause mortality, (Odds Ratio 1.52, 95% CI [1.01–2.30], p = 0.046) but not for composite severe outcomes. However, moderate-severe anemia (Hb < 11 g/dL) on admission was independently associated with both severe outcomes (OR1.53, 95% CI [1.05–2.23], p = 0.028) and mortality (OR 1.67, 95% CI [1.09–2.56], p = 0.019) during hospitalization. Conclusion Anemia on admission was independently associated with increased odds of all-cause mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Furthermore, moderate-severe anemia (Hb <11 g/dL) was an independent risk factor for severe COVID-19 outcomes. Moving forward, COVID-19 patient management and risk stratification may benefit from addressing anemia on admission.

Background Increasing awareness of scientific misconduct has prompted various fields of medicine, including orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, and dentistry to characterize the reasons for article retraction. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the reasons for and the rate of article retraction in the field of anesthesia within the last 30 years. Methods Based on a reproducible search strategy, two independent reviewers searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Retraction Watch website to identify retracted anesthesiology articles. Extracted data included: author names, year of publication, year of the retracted article, journal name, journal five-year impact factor, research type (clinical, basic science, or review), reason for article retraction, number of citations, and presence of a watermark indicating article retraction. Results Three hundred and fifty articles were included for data extraction. Reasons for article retraction could be grouped into six broad categories. The most common reason for retraction was fraud (data fabrication or manipulation), which accounted for nearly half (49.4%) of all retractions, followed by lack of appropriate ethical approval (28%). Other reasons for retraction included publication issues (e.g., duplicate publications), plagiarism, and studies with methodologic or other non

No abstract

No abstract