Dataset Information

Clinical and laboratory factors associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: SARS Coronavirus-2 is one of the most widespread viruses globally during the 21^st century, whose severity and ability to cause severe pneumonia and death vary. We performed a comprehensive systematic review of all studies that met our standardised criteria and then extracted data on the age, symptoms, and different treatments of Covid-19 patients and the prognosis of this disease during follow-up. Cases in this study were divided according to severity and death status and meta-analysed separately using raw mean and single proportion methods. We included 171 complete studies including 62,909 confirmed cases of Covid-19, of which 148 studies were meta-analysed. Symptoms clearly emerged in an escalating manner from mild-moderate symptoms, pneumonia, severe-critical to the group of non-survivors. Hypertension (Pooled proportion (PP): 0.48 [95% Confident interval (CI): 0.35-0.61]), diabetes (PP: 0.23 [95% CI: 0.16-0.33]) and smoking (PP: 0.12 [95% CI: 0.03-0.38]) were highest regarding pre-infection comorbidities in the non-survivor group. While acute respiratory distress syndrome (PP: 0.49 [95% CI: 0.29-0.78]), (PP: 0.63 [95% CI: 0.34-0.97]) remained one of the most common complications in the severe and death group respectively. Bilateral ground-glass opacification (PP: 0.68 [95% CI: 0.59-0.75]) was the most visible radiological image. The mortality rates estimated (PP: 0.11 [95% CI: 0.06-0.19]), (PP: 0.03 [95% CI: 0.01-0.05]), and (PP: 0.01 [95% CI: 0-0.3]) in severe-critical, pneumonia and mild-moderate groups respectively. This study can serve as a high evidence guideline for different clinical presentations of Covid-19, graded from mild to severe, and for special forms like pneumonia and death groups.

SUBMITTER: Minh LHN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8646520 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical and laboratory factors associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Minh Le Huu Nhat LHN Abozaid Ali Ahmed-Fouad AA Ha Nam Xuan NX Le Quang Loc L Gad Abdelrahman Gamil AG Tiwari Ranjit R Nhat-Le Tran T Quyen Dinh Kim DK Al-Manaseer Balqees B Kien Nguyen Dang ND Vuong Nguyen Lam NL Zayan Ahmad Helmy AH Nhi Le Huu Hanh LHH Surya Dila Kadek Agus KA Varney Joseph J Tien Huy Nguyen N

Reviews in medical virology 20210902 6

SARS Coronavirus-2 is one of the most widespread viruses globally during the 21<sup>st</sup> century, whose severity and ability to cause severe pneumonia and death vary. We performed a comprehensive systematic review of all studies that met our standardised criteria and then extracted data on the age, symptoms, and different treatments of Covid-19 patients and the prognosis of this disease during follow-up. Cases in this study were divided according to severity and death status and meta-analyse ...[more]

PMID: 34472152

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo date, several clinical laboratory parameters associated with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity have been reported. However, these parameters have not been observed consistently across studies. The aim of this review was to assess clinical laboratory parameters which may serve as markers or predictors of severe or critical COVID-19.Methods and findingsWe conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and Google Scholar databases from 2019 through April 18, 2020, and reviewed bibliographies of eligible studies, relevant systematic reviews, and the medRxiv pre-print server. We included hospital-based observational studies reporting clinical laboratory parameters of confirmed cases of COVID-19 and excluded studies having large proportions (>10%) of children and pregnant women. Two authors independently carried out screening of articles, data extraction and quality assessment. Meta-analyses were done using random effects model. Meta-median difference (MMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each laboratory parameter. Forty-five studies in 6 countries were included. Compared to non-severe COVID-19 cases, severe or critical COVID-19 was characterised by higher neutrophil count (MMD: 1.23 [95% CI: 0.58 to 1.88] ×109 cells/L), and lower lymphocyte, CD4 and CD8 T cell counts with MMD (95% CI) of -0.39 (-0.47, -0.31) ×109 cells/L, -204.9 (-302.6, -107.1) cells/μl and -123.6 (-170.6, -76.6) cells/μl, respectively. Other notable results were observed for C-reactive protein (MMD: 36.97 [95% CI: 27.58, 46.35] mg/L), interleukin-6 (MMD: 17.37 [95% CI: 4.74, 30.00] pg/ml), Troponin I (MMD: 0.01 [0.00, 0.02] ng/ml), and D-dimer (MMD: 0.65 [0.45, 0.85] mg/ml).ConclusionsRelative to non-severe COVID-19, severe or critical COVID-19 is characterised by increased markers of innate immune response, decreased markers of adaptive immune response, and increased markers of tissue damage and major organ failure. These markers could be used to recognise severe or critical disease and to monitor clinical course of COVID-19.

Project description:ObjectiveClinical and laboratory biomarkers to predict the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are essential in this pandemic situation of which resource allocation must be urgently prepared especially in the context of respiratory support readiness. Lymphocyte count has been a marker of interest since the first COVID-19 publication. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in order to investigate the association of lymphocyte count on admission and the severity of COVID-19. We would also like to analyze whether patient characteristics such as age and comorbidities affect the relationship between lymphocyte count and COVID-19.MethodsComprehensive and systematic literature search was performed from PubMed, SCOPUS, EuropePMC, ProQuest, Cochrane Central Databases, and Google Scholar. Research articles in adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 with information on lymphocyte count and several outcomes of interest, including mortality, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), intensive care unit (ICU) care, and severe COVID-19, were included in the analysis. Inverse variance method was used to obtain mean differences and its standard deviations. Maentel-Haenszel formula was used to calculate dichotomous variables to obtain odds ratios (ORs) along with its 95% confidence intervals. Random-effect models were used for meta-analysis regardless of heterogeneity. Restricted-maximum likelihood random-effects meta-regression was performed for age, gender, cardiac comorbidity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, COPD, and smoking.ResultsThere were a total of 3099 patients from 24 studies. Meta-analysis showed that patients with poor outcome have a lower lymphocyte count (mean difference - 361.06 μL [- 439.18, - 282.95], p < 0.001; I 2 84%) compared to those with good outcome. Subgroup analysis showed lower lymphocyte count in patients who died (mean difference - 395.35 μL [- 165.64, - 625.07], p < 0.001; I 2 87%), experienced ARDS (mean difference - 377.56 μL [- 271.89, - 483.22], p < 0.001; I 2 0%), received ICU care (mean difference - 376.53 μL [- 682.84, - 70.22], p = 0.02; I 2 89%), and have severe COVID-19 (mean difference - 353.34 μL [- 250.94, - 455.73], p < 0.001; I 2 85%). Lymphopenia was associated with severe COVID-19 (OR 3.70 [2.44, 5.63], p < 0.001; I 2 40%). Meta-regression showed that the association between lymphocyte count and composite poor outcome was affected by age (p = 0.034).ConclusionThis meta-analysis showed that lymphopenia on admission was associated with poor outcome in patients with COVID-19.

Project description:BackgroundSince the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many researchers in China have performed related clinical research. However, systematic reviews of the registered clinical trials are still lacking. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of clinical trials for COVID-19 to summarize their characteristics.MethodsThis study is based on the PRISMA recommendations in the Cochrane handbook. The Chinese Clinical Registration Center and the ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched to identify registered clinical trials related to COVID-19. The retrieval inception date was February 9, 2020. Two researchers independently selected the literature based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias.ResultsA total of 75 registered clinical trials (63 interventional studies and 12 observational studies) for COVID-19 were identified. The majority of clinical trials were sponsored by Chinese hospitals. Only 11 trials have begun to recruit patients, and none of the registered clinical trials have been completed; 34 trials were early clinical exploratory trials or in the pre-experiment stage, 13 trials were phase III, and four trials were phase IV. The intervention methods included traditional Chinese medicine in 26 trials, Western medicine in 30 trials, and integrated traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine in 19 trials. The subjects were primarily non-critical adult patients (≥ 18 years old). The median sample size of the trials was 100 (IQR: 60-200), and the median length of the trial periods was 179 d (IQR: 94-366 d). The main outcomes were clinical observation and examinations. Overall, the methodological quality of both the interventional trials and observational studies was low.ConclusionsIntensive clinical trials on the treatment of COVID-19 using traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine are ongoing or will be performed in China. However, based on the uncertain methodological quality, small sample size, and long trial duration, we will not be able to obtain reliable, high-quality clinical evidence regarding the treatment of COVID-19 in the near future. Improving the quality of study design, prioritizing promising drugs, and using different designs and statistical methods are worth advocating and recommending for clinical trials of COVID-19 in the future.

Project description:Importance: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a newly emerging infectious disease that has caused a global pandemic. The presenting symptoms are mainly respiratory symptom, yet studies have reported nervous system involvement in the disease. A systematic review and meta-analysis of these studies are required to understanding the neurologic characteristic of the disease and help physicians with early diagnosis and management. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the neurologic characteristics in patients with COVID-19. Evidence Review: Authors conducted a literature search through PubMed from January 1st, 2020 to April 8th, 2020. Furthermore, the authors added additional sources by reviewing related references. Studies presenting the neurologic features of COVID-19 patients in their data were included. Case reports and case series were also included in this review. The quality of the studies was assessed based on the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines. Selected studies were included in the meta-analysis of proportion and the heterogeneity test. Finding: From 280 identified studies, 33 were eligible, with 7,559 participants included. Most of the included studies were from China (29 [88%]). Muscle injury or myalgia was the most common (19.2%, 95%CI 15.4-23.2%) neurologic symptom of COVID-19, followed by headache (10.9%, 95%CI 8.62-13.51%); dizziness (8.7%, 95%CI 5.02-13.43%); nausea with or without vomiting (4.6%, 95%CI 3.17-6.27%); concurrent cerebrovascular disease (4.4%, 95%CI 1.92-7.91%); and impaired consciousness (3.8%, 95%CI 0.16-12.04%). Underlying cerebrovascular disease was found in 8.5% (95%CI 4.5-13.5%) of the studies. Conclusion: Neurologic findings vary from non-specific to specific symptoms in COVID-19 patients. Some severe symptoms or diseases can present in the later stage of the disease. Physicians should be aware of the presence of neurologic signs and symptoms as a chief complaint of COVID-19, in order to improve management and prevent a worsening outcome of the patients.

Dataset Information

Clinical and laboratory factors associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Clinical and laboratory factors associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets