Viscoelastometric Testing to Assess Hemostasis of COVID-19: A Systematic Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bareille M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8072929 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: Mass testing and adequate management are essential to terminate the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This testing is due to the possibility of unidentified cases, especially ones without COVID-19 related symptoms. This review aimed to examine the outcome of the existing studies on the ways of identifying COVID-19 cases, and determine the populations at risk, symptom and diagnostic test management of COVID-19. Methods: The articles reviewed were scientific publications on the PubMed, Science Direct, ProQuest, and Scopus databases. The keywords used to obtain the data were COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and case detection, case management or diagnostic test. We applied the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Population, Intervention, Control and Outcomes (PICO) approaches. Results: A total of 21 articles from 13 countries met the inclusion criteria and were further analyzed qualitatively. However, 62% of the articles used a rapid antibody test for screening rather than a rapid antigen test. According to the rapid antigen test, 51.3% were positive, with men aged above 50 years recording the highest number of cases. Furthermore, 57.1% of patients were symptomatic, while diagnostic tests' sensitivity and specificity increased to 100% in 14 days after the onset. Conclusion s: Real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is recommended by the World Health Organization for detection of COVID-19. Suppose it is unavailable, the rapid antigen test is used as an alternative rather than the rapid antibody test. Diagnosis is expected to be confirmed using the PCR and serological assay to achieve an early diagnosis of COVID-19, according to disease progression, gradual rapid tests can be used, such as rapid antigen in an earlier week and antibody tests confirmed by RT-PCR and serological assay in the second week of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC9194520 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSince March 2020, when the COVID-19 outbreak has been deemed a pandemic by the WHO, the SARS-CoV-2 spreading has been the focus of attention of scientists, authorities, public health agencies and communities around the world. One of the great concerns and challenges, mainly in low-income and middle-income countries, is the identification and monitoring of COVID-19 cases. The large-scale availability of testing is a fundamental aspect of COVID-19 control, but it is currently the biggest challenge faced by many countries around the world. We aimed to synthesise and critically evaluate the scientific evidence on the influence of the testing capacity for symptomatic individuals in the control of COVID-19.Methods and analysisA systematic review will be conducted in eight databases, such as Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, ISI-of-Knowledge, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, SCOPUS, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, PsycINFO and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, from inception to 30 July 2020. No restriction regarding the language, publication date or setting will be employed. Primary outcomes will include the sensitivity as well as the specificity of the tests for COVID-19. Study selection will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. Methodological assessment of the studies will be evaluated by the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomised controlled trials, the MINORS for non-randomised studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort or case-control studies. Findings will be structured according to the test type and target population characteristics and focused on the primary outcomes (sensitivity and specificity). Moreover, if sufficient data are available, a meta-analysis will be performed. Pooled standardised mean differences and 95% CIs will be calculated. Heterogeneity between the studies will be determined by I2 statistics. Subgroup analyses will also be conducted. Publication bias will be assessed with funnel plots and Egger's test. Heterogeneity will be explored by random effects analysis.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. The results will be disseminated widely via peer-reviewed publication and presentations at conferences related to this field.Prospero registration numberCRD42020182724.
| S-EPMC7451293 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThis study assessed a functional protocol to identify myocarditis or myocardial involvement in competitive athletes following SARS-CoV2 infection.MethodsWe prospectively evaluated competitive athletes (n = 174) for myocarditis or myocardial involvement using the Multidisciplinary Inquiry of Athletes in Miami (MIAMI) protocol, a median of 18.5 (IQR 16-25) days following diagnosis of COVID-19 infection. The protocol included biomarker analysis, ECG, cardiopulmonary stress echocardiography testing with global longitudinal strain (GLS), and targeted cardiac MRI for athletes with abnormal findings. Patients were followed for median of 148 days.ResultsWe evaluated 52 females and 122 males, with median age 21 (IQR: 19, 22) years. Five (2.9%) had evidence of myocardial involvement, including definite or probable myocarditis (n = 2). Three of the 5 athletes with myocarditis or myocardial involvement had clinically significant abnormalities during stress testing including ventricular ectopy, wall motion abnormalities and/or elevated VE/VCO2, while the other two athletes had resting ECG abnormalities. VO2max, left ventricular ejection fraction and GLS were similar between those with or without myocardial involvement. No adverse events were reported in the 169 athletes cleared to exercise at a median follow-up of 148 (IQR108,211) days. Patients who were initially restricted from exercise had no adverse sequelae and were cleared to resume training between 3 and 12 months post diagnosis.ConclusionsScreening protocols that include exercise testing may enhance the sensitivity of detecting COVID-19 related myocardial involvement following recovery from SARS-CoV2 infection.
| S-EPMC8968209 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Serologic testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) promises to assist in assessing exposure to and confirming the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and to provide a roadmap for reopening countries worldwide. Considering this, a proper understanding of serologic-based diagnostic testing characteristics is critical. The aim of this study was to perform a structured systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic characteristics of serological-based COVID-19 testing. Electronic searches were performed using Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Full-text observational studies that reported IgG or IgM diagnostic yield and used nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) of respiratory tract specimens, as a the reference standard in English language were included. A bivariate model was used to compute pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative likelihood ratio (LR), diagnostic odds ratio (OR), and summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Five studies (n=1,166 individual tests) met inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy for IgG was 81% [(95% CI, 61-92);I2=95.28], 97% [(95% CI, 78-100);I2=97.80], and 93% (95% CI, 91-95), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for IgM antibodies was 80% [(95% CI, 57-92);I2=94.63], 96% [(95% CI, 81-99);I2=92.96] and 95% (95% CI, 92-96). This meta-analysis demonstrates suboptimal sensitivity and specificity of serologic-based diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 and suggests that antibody testing alone, in its current form, is unlikely to be an adequate solution to the difficulties posed by COVID-19 and in guiding future policy decisions regarding social distancing and reopening of the economy worldwide.
| S-EPMC7410353 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as school closures and stay-at-home orders, have been implemented around the world to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Their effectiveness in improving health-related outcomes has been the subject of numerous empirical studies. However, these studies show fairly large variation among methodologies in use, reflecting the absence of an established methodological framework. On the one hand, variation in methodologies may be desirable to assess the robustness of results; on the other hand, a lack of common standards can impede comparability among studies. To establish a comprehensive overview over the methodologies in use, we conducted a systematic review of studies assessing the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions between January 1, 2020 and January 12, 2021 (n = 248). We identified substantial variation in methodologies with respect to study setting, outcome, intervention, methodological approach, and effectiveness assessment. On this basis, we point to shortcomings of existing studies and make recommendations for the design of future studies.
| S-EPMC9510554 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the effect of COVID-19 on retinal tissues by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature.BackgroundThe novel coronavirus disease is not yet well understood. The orbit provides a window into the body's microvasculature, and as such, it is a non-invasive opportunity to analyse the systemic circulation in vivo. By analysing the current literature, we test the hypothesis that non-invasive imaging of the retina could provide insight into the effect of COVID-19 on the retinal microvasculature.MethodsFor this systematic review and meta-analysis, we screened PubMed databases and LitCOVID19 using the search criteria: (OCTA or Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography) AND (COVID-19 or corona or SARS-CoV-2) AND (retina or fundus). Databases were searched on 11 January 2022. The primary study outcomes were studies that utilised OCTA to analyse the retina; secondary outcomes involved studies that involved other imaging modalities such as OCT, fundus photography, and fundus autofluorescence.FindingsThe total number of studies included in this review was 32. Optical coherence tomography angiography scans show reduced central retinal vascular density, a thinner ganglion cell layer, a thicker retinal nerve fibre layer, and an enlarged foveal avascular zone. Optical coherence tomography scans demonstrate a thicker central macular thickness and other changes to the macula, ganglion cell, and inner nuclear layers. Many fundus photographs depicted cotton wool spots, microhaemorrhages, and vascular occlusions. Non-invasive imaging technology has demonstrated that COVID-19 can profoundly affect the retina. Therefore, there is a requirement for long-term follow-up of COVID-19 patients to assess whether the retinal damage caused by COVID-19 is reversible.
| S-EPMC9053559 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:To describe perinatal and neonatal outcomes in newborns exposed to SARS-CoV-2. Methods:A systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed Central, LILACS, and Google Scholar using the keywords 'covid ' AND 'newborn' OR 'child' OR 'infant,' on 18 March 2020, and again on 17 April 2020. One researcher conducted the search and extracted data on demographics, maternal outcomes, diagnostic tests, imaging, and neonatal outcomes. Results:Of 256 publications identified, 20 met inclusion criteria and comprised neonatal outcome data for 222 newborns whose mothers were suspected or confirmed to be SARS-CoV-2 positive perinatally (17 studies) or of newborns referred to hospital with infection/pneumonia (3 studies). Most (12 studies) were case-series reports; all were from China, except three (Australia, Iran, and Spain). Of the 222 newborns, 13 were reported as positive for SARS-CoV-2; most of the studies reported no or mild symptoms and no adverse perinatal outcomes. Two papers among those from newborns who tested positive reported moderate or severe clinical characteristics. Five studies using data on umbilical cord blood, placenta, and/or amniotic fluid reported no positive results. Nine studies reported radiographic imaging, including 5 with images of pneumonia, increased lung marking, thickened texture, or high-density nodular shadow. Minor, non-specific changes in biochemical variables were reported. Studies that tested breast milk reported negative SARS-CoV-2 results. Conclusions:Given the paucity of studies at this time, vertical transmission cannot be confirmed or denied. Current literature does not support abstaining from breastfeeding nor separating mothers and newborns. Further evidence and data collection networks, particularly in the Americas, are needed for establishing definitive guidelines and recommendations.
| S-EPMC7241573 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSevere coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) presents with progressive dyspnea, which results from acute lung inflammatory edema leading to hypoxia. As with other infectious diseases that affect the respiratory tract, asthma has been cited as a potential risk factor for severe COVID-19. However, conflicting results have been published over the last few months and the putative association between these two diseases is still unproven.MethodsHere, we systematically reviewed all reports on COVID-19 published since its emergence in December 2019 to June 30, 2020, looking into the description of asthma as a premorbid condition, which could indicate its potential involvement in disease progression.ResultsWe found 372 articles describing the underlying diseases of 161,271 patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Asthma was reported as a premorbid condition in only 2623 patients accounting for 1.6% of all patients.ConclusionsAs the global prevalence of asthma is 4.4%, we conclude that either asthma is not a premorbid condition that contributes to the development of COVID-19 or clinicians and researchers are not accurately describing the premorbidities in COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC7787409 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhile the landscape of vaccine and treatment candidates against the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been reviewed systematically, prophylactic candidates remain unexplored.ObjectivesTo map pre- and postexposure prophylactic (PrEP and PEP) candidate for COVID-19.Data sourcesPubMed/Medline, Embase, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform clinical trial registries and medRxiv.Study eligibility criteria and participantsAll studies in humans or animals and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in humans reporting primary data on prophylactic candidates against COVID-19, excluding studies focused on key populations.InterventionsPrEP and PEP candidate for COVID-19.MethodsSystematic review and qualitative synthesis of COVID-19 PrEP and PEP studies and RCTs complemented by search of medRxiv and PubMed and Embase for studies reporting RCT outcomes since systematic review search completion.ResultsWe identified 13 studies (from 2119 database records) and 117 RCTs (from 5565 RCTs listed in the registries) that met the inclusion criteria. Non-RCT studies reported on cross-sectional studies using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in humans (n = 2) or reported on animal studies (n = 7), most of which used antibodies. All five completed RCTs focused on the use of HCQ as either PrEP or PEP, and these and the cross-sectional studies reported no prophylactic effect. The majority of ongoing RCTs evaluated HCQ or other existing candidates including non-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines, anti(retro)virals or use of vitamins and supplements.ConclusionsThe key message from completed studies and RCTs seems to be that HCQ does not work. There is little evidence regarding other compounds, with all RCTs using candidates other than HCQ still ongoing. It remains to be seen if the portfolio of existing molecules being evaluated in RCTs will identify successful prophylaxis against COVID-19 or if there is a need for the development of new candidates.
| S-EPMC7813508 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral infection caused by SARS-CoV-2 that induces a generalized inflammatory state. Organokines (adipokines, osteokines, myokines, hepatokines, and cardiokines) can produce beneficial or harmful effects in this condition. This study aimed to systematically review the role of organokines on COVID-19. PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases were searched, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and 37 studies were selected, comprising more than 2700 individuals infected with the virus. Among COVID-19 patients, organokines have been associated with endothelial dysfunction and multiple organ failure due to augmented cytokines and increased SARS-CoV-2 viremia. Changes in the pattern of organokines secretion can directly or indirectly contribute to aggravating the infection, promoting immune response alterations, and predicting the disease progression. These molecules have the potential to be used as adjuvant biomarkers to predict the severity of the illness and severe outcomes.
| S-EPMC10216619 | biostudies-literature