Dataset Information

Clinical Properties and Diagnostic Methods of COVID-19 Infection in Pregnancies: Meta-Analysis

ABSTRACT: We aimed to summarize reliable medical evidence by the meta-analysis of all published retrospective studies that examined data based on the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by clinical symptoms, molecular (RT-PCR) diagnosis, and characteristic CT imaging features in pregnant women. The MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, ClinicalKey, and CINAHL databases were used to select the studies. Then, 384 articles were received, including the studies until 01/May/2020. As a result of the full-text evaluation, 12 retrospective articles covering all the data related were selected. A total of 181 pregnant cases with SARS-CoV-2 infections were included in the meta-analysis within the scope of these articles. According to the results, the incidence of fever was 38.1% (95% CI: 14.2-65%) and cough was 22% (95% CI: 10.8-35.2%) among all clinical features of pregnant cases with SARS-CoV-2 infection. So, fever and cough are the most common symptoms in pregnant cases with SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 91.8% (95% CI: 76.7-99.9%) of RT-PCR results are positive. Moreover, abnormal CT incidence is 97.9% (95% CI: 94.2-99.9%) positive. No case was death. However, as this virus spreads globally, it should not be overlooked that the incidence will increase in pregnant women and maybe in the risky group. RT-PCR and CT can be used together in an accurate and safe diagnosis. In conclusion, these findings will provide important guidance for current studies regarding the clinical features and correct detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women, as well as whether it will create emergency tables that will require the use of a viral drug.

SUBMITTER: Uygun-Can B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7528133 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundsThe novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused a global pandemic. Pancreatic injuries have been reported in COVID-19 patients. The present meta-analysis was conducted to compare the morbidity and outcomes of AP between COVID-19 positive and negative patients.MethodsDatabases including Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE were systematically searched (until July 3rd 2022). Studies with English abstracts comparing the severity and outcomes of AP between COVID-19 positive and negative patients were included. Mean differences or odds ratios with a 95% confidence interval were employed for assess variables. Risk of publication bias was assessed with funnel plots.ResultsData from 7 studies with a total of 2816 AP patients were included. COVID-19 positive was associated with higher incidences of pancreatic necrosis (OR = 1.65; 95% CI: 1.13 to 2.42, P = 0.01; P = 0.82 for heterogeneity) and persistent organ failure (OR = 6.87; 95% CI: 2.37 to 19.98, P = 0.0004; P = 0.12 for heterogeneity), especially cardiovascular failure (OR = 2.92; 95% CI: 1.66 to 5.14, P = 0.0002; P = 0.58 for heterogeneity) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or acute lung injury (ALI) (OR = 3.03; 95% CI: 2.09 to 4.39, P < 0.00001; P = 0.20 for heterogeneity). COVID-19 infection induced a higher level of CRP (MD = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.64, P = 0.001; P < 0.00001 for heterogeneity) as well as coagulation disorders involving platelets, prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and D-dimer (all P < 0.05). During hospitalization, COVID-19 positive was associated with higher ICU admission rate (OR = 2.76; 95% CI: 1.98 to 3.85 P < 0.00001; P = 0.47 for heterogeneity). COVID-19 positive AP was associated with a higher mortality rate (OR = 3.70; 95% CI: 2.60 to 5.25, P < 0.00001; P = 0.12 for heterogeneity). Discussion. The number of included studies is limited and none is RCT, thus the risks of publication and selective bias could not be ignored. COVID-19 deteriorated the severity and clinical outcomes of AP, with a high incidence of morbidity and mortality.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Evidence-based characterization of the diagnostic and prognostic value of the hematological and immunological markers related to the epidemic of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is critical to understand the clinical course of the infection and to assess in development and validation of biomarkers. METHODS:Based on systematic search in Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Science Direct up to April 22, 2020, a total of 52 eligible articles with 6,320 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cohorts were included. Pairwise comparison between severe versus mild disease, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) versus general ward admission and expired versus survivors were performed for 36 laboratory parameters. The pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the DerSimonian Laird method/random effects model and converted to the Odds ratio (OR). The decision tree algorithm was employed to identify the key risk factor(s) attributed to severe COVID-19 disease. RESULTS:Cohorts with elevated levels of white blood cells (WBCs) (OR = 1.75), neutrophil count (OR = 2.62), D-dimer (OR = 3.97), prolonged prothrombin time (PT) (OR = 1.82), fibrinogen (OR = 3.14), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (OR = 1.60), procalcitonin (OR = 4.76), IL-6 (OR = 2.10), and IL-10 (OR = 4.93) had higher odds of progression to severe phenotype. Decision tree model (sensitivity = 100%, specificity = 81%) showed the high performance of neutrophil count at a cut-off value of more than 3.74x109/L for identifying patients at high risk of severe COVID-19. Likewise, ICU admission was associated with higher levels of WBCs (OR = 5.21), neutrophils (OR = 6.25), D-dimer (OR = 4.19), and prolonged PT (OR = 2.18). Patients with high IL-6 (OR = 13.87), CRP (OR = 7.09), D-dimer (OR = 6.36), and neutrophils (OR = 6.25) had the highest likelihood of mortality. CONCLUSIONS:Several hematological and immunological markers, in particular neutrophilic count, could be helpful to be included within the routine panel for COVID-19 infection evaluation to ensure risk stratification and effective management.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (covid-19).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, bioRxiv, and medRxiv from 1 January to 30 April 2020, using subject headings or subheadings combined with text words for the concepts of covid-19 and serological tests for covid-19.Eligibility criteria and data analysisEligible studies measured sensitivity or specificity, or both of a covid-19 serological test compared with a reference standard of viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Studies were excluded with fewer than five participants or samples. Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using random effects bivariate meta-analyses.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity, stratified by method of serological testing (enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs), or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)) and immunoglobulin class (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum specific sensitivity and specificity within subgroups defined by study or participant characteristics, including time since symptom onset.Results5016 references were identified and 40 studies included. 49 risk of bias assessments were carried out (one for each population and method evaluated). High risk of patient selection bias was found in 98% (48/49) of assessments and high or unclear risk of bias from performance or interpretation of the serological test in 73% (36/49). Only 10% (4/40) of studies included outpatients. Only two studies evaluated tests at the point of care. For each method of testing, pooled sensitivity and specificity were not associated with the immunoglobulin class measured. The pooled sensitivity of ELISAs measuring IgG or IgM was 84.3% (95% confidence interval 75.6% to 90.9%), of LFIAs was 66.0% (49.3% to 79.3%), and of CLIAs was 97.8% (46.2% to 100%). In all analyses, pooled sensitivity was lower for LFIAs, the potential point-of-care method. Pooled specificities ranged from 96.6% to 99.7%. Of the samples used for estimating specificity, 83% (10 465/12 547) were from populations tested before the epidemic or not suspected of having covid-19. Among LFIAs, pooled sensitivity of commercial kits (65.0%, 49.0% to 78.2%) was lower than that of non-commercial tests (88.2%, 83.6% to 91.3%). Heterogeneity was seen in all analyses. Sensitivity was higher at least three weeks after symptom onset (ranging from 69.9% to 98.9%) compared with within the first week (from 13.4% to 50.3%).ConclusionHigher quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19 are urgently needed. Currently, available evidence does not support the continued use of existing point-of-care serological tests.Study registrationPROSPERO CRD42020179452.

Dataset Information

Clinical Properties and Diagnostic Methods of COVID-19 Infection in Pregnancies: Meta-Analysis

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets