Dataset Information

Laboratory parameters and outcomes in hospitalized adults with COVID-19: a scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Laboratory parameters and the associated clinical outcomes have been an area of focus in COVID-19 research globally.

Purpose

We performed a scoping review to synthesize laboratory values described in the literature and their associations with mortality and disease severity.

Methods

We identified all primary studies involving laboratory values with clinical outcomes as a primary endpoint by performing data searches in various systematic review databases until 10th August, 2020. Two reviewers independently reviewed all abstracts (13,568 articles) and full text (1126 articles) data. A total of 529 studies involving 165,020 patients from 28 different countries were included. Investigation of the number of studies and patients from a geographical perspective showed that the majority of published literature from January-March 2020 to April-June 2020 was from Asia, though there was a temporal shift in published studies to Europe and the Americas. For each laboratory value, the proportion of studies that noted a statistically significant (p < 0.05) correlation with adverse clinical outcomes (e.g., mortality, disease severity) was tabulated.

Results and conclusion

Among frequently reported laboratory values, blood urea nitrogen was the most often reported predictor of mortality (91%); neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio was the most frequent statistically significant laboratory parameter in predicting disease severity (96%). This review highlights the temporal progression of laboratory value frequencies, as well as potentially distinct utilities of different markers for clinical outcomes of COVID-19. Future research pathways include using this collected data for focused quantitative meta-analyses of particular laboratory values correlated with clinical outcomes of mortality and disease severity.

SUBMITTER: Zhu A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8272607 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhether HIV infection is associated with differences in clinical outcomes among people hospitalized with COVID-19 is uncertain.ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of HIV infection on COVID-19 outcomes among hospitalized patients.MethodsUsing the American Heart Association's COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease registry, we used hierarchical mixed effects models to assess the association of HIV with in-hospital mortality accounting for patient demographics and comorbidities and clustering by hospital. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), severity of illness, and length of stay (LOS).ResultsThe registry included 21,528 hospitalization records of people with confirmed COVID-19 from 107 hospitals in 2020, including 220 people living with HIV (PLWH). PLWH were younger (56.0+/-13.0 versus 61.3+/-17.9 years old) and more likely to be male (72.3% vs 52.7%), Non-Hispanic Black (51.4% vs 25.4%), on Medicaid (44.5% vs 24.5), and active tobacco users (12.7% versus 6.5%).Of the study population, 36 PLWH (16.4%) had in-hospital mortality compared with 3,290 (15.4%) without HIV (Risk ratio 1.06, 95%CI 0.79-1.43; risk difference 0.9%, 95%CI -4.2 to 6.1%; p=0.71). After adjustment for age, sex, race, and insurance, HIV was not associated with in-hospital mortality (aOR 1.13; 95%CI 0.77-1.6; p 0.54) even after adding body mass index and comorbidities (aOR 1.15; 95%CI 0.78-1.70; p=0.48). HIV was not associated with MACE (aOR 0.99, 95%CI 0.69-1.44, p=0.91), severity of illness (aOR 0.96, 95%CI 0.62-1.50, p=0.86), or LOS (aOR 1.03; 95% CI 0.76-1.66, p=0.21).ConclusionHIV was not associated with adverse outcomes of COVID-19 including in-hospital mortality, MACE, or severity of illness.Condensed abstractWe studied 21,528 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 107 hospitals in AHA's COVID-19 registry to examine the association between HIV and COVID-19 outcomes. More patients with HIV were younger, male, non-Hispanic Black, on Medicaid and current smokers. HIV was not associated with worse COVID-19 in-hospital mortality (Risk ratio 1.06, 95%CI 0.79-1.43; p=0.71) even after adjustment (aOR 1.15; 95%CI 0.78-1.70; p=0.48). HIV was also not associated with MACE (aOR 0.99, 95%CI 0.69-1.44, p=0.91) or severity of illness (aOR 0.96, 95%CI 0.62-1.50, p=0.86. Our findings do not support that HIV is a major risk factor for adverse COVID-19 outcomes.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:This study aimed to provide a descriptive analysis of recent evidence available in the literature in relation to the efficacy of unilateral cochlear implantation in adults, the general findings of these studies, and the populations to which these findings apply. It also aimed to appraise the individual success rate and the magnitude of benefit following implantation. DESIGN:A scoping review was conducted to identify English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2000 and 2018 assessing the outcomes of cochlear implantation in adults who received their first cochlear implant from 2000 onwards. To be included, studies had to report speech perception or self-reported measures of listening or quality of life at least three months after implantation. Systematic searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar. A two-stage screening approach was used, with seven reviewers independently screening titles and abstracts against inclusion criteria and three from this group further reviewing full-texts. A data charting form was developed and trialled, with 10% of the study data extracted in duplicate to compare results and further refine the form. Data relevant for efficacy analyses were extracted from studies with sample sizes of at least 10 participants. RESULTS:A total of 4182 abstracts were screened against inclusion criteria, and of these, 603 full-texts were further screened. After exclusion of non-eligible articles, 201 articles were included in the first part of this scoping review. The majority of these articles were case series or comparative studies without a concurrent group, and had small sample sizes. Data synthesis conducted with the 102 articles with more than 10 participants highlighted that the average word perception ability improved from 8.2% to 53.9% after implantation. Self-reported benefit improved by 21.5 percentage points. At the individual level, 82.0% of adults with postlingual hearing loss and 53.4% of adults with prelingual hearing loss improved their speech perception ability by 15 percentage points or more. A small proportion had poorer ability after implantation or had stopped using the cochlear implant. CONCLUSIONS:Despite broad inconsistencies in measurement, research design, and reporting across articles, it is evident that cochlear implantation is beneficial to the majority of adults of any age who have limited aided speech perception abilities. While many adults with severe-to-profound hearing loss may also have poor speech perception abilities with hearing aids, the validity of using hearing loss severity as a criterion for cochlear implantation has not been demonstrated. Clinical and research recommendations derived from this review are provided.