Clinical, Laboratory and Imaging Features of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Alfonso J. Rodríguez‐MoralesJaime A. Cardona‐OspinaEstefanía Gutiérrez‐OcampoRhuvi Villamizar‐PeñaYeimer Holguin-RiveraJuan Pablo Escalera-AntezanaLucia Elena Alvarado-ArnezD. Katterine Bonilla‐AldanaCarlos Franco‐ParedesAndrés F. Henao‐MartínezAlberto Paniz‐MondolfiGuillermo J. Lagos-GrisalesEduardo Ramírez-VallejoJosé Antonio SuárezLysien I. ZambranoWilmer E. Villamil‐GómezAli A. RabaanHarapan HarapanKuldeep DhamaHiroshi NishiuraHiromitsu KataokaTauseef AhmadRanjit Sah
413
Citation
52
Reference
10
Related Paper
Citation Trend
Abstract:
Introduction: An epidemic of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) begun in December 2019 in China, causing primary concern. Among raised questions, clinical, laboratory, and imaging features have been partially characterized in some observational studies. No systematic reviews have been published on this matter. Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis, using three databases to assess clinical, laboratory, imaging features, and outcomes of confirmed cases of COVID-19. All the observational studies, and also case reports, were included. The case reports were analyzed separately. We performed a random-effects model meta-analysis to calculate the pooled prevalence and 95%CI. Measures of heterogeneity, including Cochran’s Q statistic, the I2 index, and the τ2 test, were estimated and reported.Results: 660 articles were retrieved. After screening by abstract and title, 27 articles were selected for full-text assessment. Of them, 19 were finally included for qualitative and quantitative analyses. Additionally, 39 case report articles were included and analyzed separately. For >656 patients, fever (88.7%, 95%CI 84.5-92.9%), cough (57.6%, 40.8-74.4%) and dyspnea (45.6%, 10.9-80.4%) were the most prevalent clinical manifestations. Among the patients, 20.3% (95%CI 10.0-30.6%) required ICU, with 32.8% presenting ARDS (95%CI 13.7-51.8), 6.2% (95%CI 3.1-9.3) with shock and 13.9% (95%CI 6.2-21.5%) with a fatal outcome.Discussion: COVID-19 is a new clinical infectious disease, causing considerable compromise, especially in patients with comorbidities, requiring ICU in at least a fifth of them and sometimes with fatal outcomes. Additional research is needed to elucidate factors that may mediate the pathogenesis of the severe and fatal associated disease.72 preschoolers and 72 school children observed the original discrimination of nonreversal shift (NRS) followed by 14 NRS trials by themselves. The observational trials were 10 or 30 in each age group. The correct (_??_) or incorrect (×) responses on the 1st (unchanged pair) and the 2nd (changed pair) trials of NRS were mainly measured. In preschoolers, both dependent observational-learning mode (_??_-× responses: DOL) and independent observational-learning mode (_??_-_??_ and ×-×: IOL) were found, but no observational-trial effects on the modes were found. In school children, DOL occurred significantly more than IOL in both groups, and the observational-trial effect was also found. Subproblem analyses suggested that the _??_-× responses were indeed the “dependent” mode rather than the “independent” one.
Observational learning
Cite
Citations (1)
Comparison of search strategies in systematic reviews of adverse effects to other systematic reviews
Abstract Background Research indicates that the methods used to identify data for systematic reviews of adverse effects may need to differ from other systematic reviews. Objectives To compare search methods in systematic reviews of adverse effects with other reviews. Methods The search methodologies in 849 systematic reviews of adverse effects were compared with other reviews. Results Poor reporting of search strategies is apparent in both systematic reviews of adverse effects and other types of systematic reviews. Systematic reviews of adverse effects are less likely to restrict their searches to MEDLINE or include only randomised controlled trials ( RCT s). The use of other databases is largely dependent on the topic area and the year the review was conducted, with more databases searched in more recent reviews. Adverse effects search terms are used by 72% of reviews and despite recommendations only two reviews report using floating subheadings. Conclusions The poor reporting of search strategies in systematic reviews is universal, as is the dominance of searching MEDLINE . However, reviews of adverse effects are more likely to include a range of study designs (not just RCT s) and search beyond MEDLINE .
Cite
Citations (51)
Cite
Citations (3)
The purposes of this study were to develop and implement an observational training program and to assess the effects of a video observational training program on video and live observational proficiency. Physical education majors took a pretest in both a video and a live environment to assess observational proficiency. The task was observing children batting and answering questions regarding the critical features of the movement. The students were then placed into either a treatment ( n = 12) or a control ( n = 11) group. There were no differences between groups on either assessment ( p > .05). The treatment group then participated in a video observational training program. After the training, all subjects took a posttest in each environment to assess observational proficiency. The training was found to be effective in improving video observational proficiency ( p < .05) but not live observational proficiency ( p > .05). These results provide support for the effectiveness of video observational training in developing video observational proficiency but not live observational proficiency.
Observational learning
Cite
Citations (13)
Observational methods such as OW AS. RULA. and REBA have been widely used to identify posture-related risks of musculoskeletal disorders in industry, since they are useful and efficient in evaluating postural stresses. However. there are few studies comparing the methods and providing guidelines for selecting and using the methods. They have been developed based on different backgrounds and with different application areas. Each method has its own characteristics. which must be considered in selecting and using them. In this study. 17 male subjects evaluated 42 different working postures that frequently assumed in the automobile assembly line using a psychophysical method. The postures were then evaluated by different observational methods. The results of the observational methods were compared with psychophysically evaluated stresses. The observational methods resulted in different values of stresses for certain postures. For some postures showing high values of perceived discomfort. the observational methods showed different values of stresses. These results showed that the observational methods should be used differently according to application area and they have some weak points to be improved.
Cite
Citations (10)
In this article, we describe the strengths and weaknesses of several methods of locating systematic reviews, including electronic databases such as MEDLINE, Best Evidence (the electronic version of ACP Journal Club and Evidence-Based Medicine), and the Cochrane Library (a regularly updated source of reviews and controlled trials produced by the Cochrane Collaboration). We also present steps that can be used to critically appraise review articles; as an example, we use a systematic review that evaluates the gastrointestinal toxicity of various nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the context of a clinical scenario.
Critical appraisal
Evidence-Based Medicine
Cite
Citations (166)
Studies can be observational or experimental. With an observational study, the investigator does not determine the assignment of subjects, and there might not be a control group. If there is a control group, assignment of the independent variable (exposure or intervention) is not under the control of the investigator. Observational studies can be rigorously conducted, but the lack of random assignment of the exposure/intervention introduces confounding and bias. Thus, the quality of evidence resulting from observational studies is lower than that of experimental randomized controlled trials (RCTs). An observational study might be performed if an RCT is unethical, impractical, or outside the control of the investigator. There are many types of prospective and retrospective observational study designs. However, an observational study design should be avoided if an experimental study is possible. Sophisticated statistical approaches can be used, but this does not elevate an observational study to the level of an RCT. Regardless of quality, an observational study cannot establish causality.
Causality
Cite
Citations (5)
Abstract Background Results of new studies should be interpreted in the context of what is already known to compare results and build the state of the science. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify and synthesise results from meta-research studies examining if original studies within health use systematic reviews to place their results in the context of earlier, similar studies. Methods We searched MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), and the Cochrane Methodology Register for meta-research studies reporting the use of systematic reviews to place results of original clinical studies in the context of existing studies. The primary outcome was the percentage of original studies included in the meta-research studies using systematic reviews or meta-analyses placing new results in the context of existing studies. Two reviewers independently performed screening and data extraction. Data were synthesised using narrative synthesis and a random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the mean proportion of original studies placing their results in the context of earlier studies. The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework. Results We included 15 meta-research studies, representing 1724 original studies. The mean percentage of original studies within these meta-research studies placing their results in the context of existing studies was 30.7% (95% CI [23.8%, 37.6%], I 2 =87.4%). Only one of the meta-research studies integrated results in a meta-analysis, while four integrated their results within a systematic review; the remaining cited or referred to a systematic review. The results of this systematic review are characterised by a high degree of heterogeneity and should be interpreted cautiously. Conclusion Our systematic review demonstrates a low rate of and great variability in using systematic reviews to place new results in the context of existing studies. On average, one third of the original studies contextualised their results. Improvement is still needed in researchers’ use of prior research systematically and transparently—also known as the use of an evidence-based research approach, to contribute to the accumulation of new evidence on which future studies should be based. Systematic review registration Open Science registration number https://osf.io/8gkzu/
Data extraction
Research Design
Cite
Citations (11)
The article describes the basic rules for conducting observational studies, in particular, registers. The principles of the assessment of its quality and impact on the results are discussed. The potential for evaluating therapeutic effect and side effects in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies is compared. Effects of one drug identified in RCTs and observational studies are compared.
Cite
Citations (23)