ArticleThe Journal of emergency medicine2005
Comparative study of patients with and without SARS who fulfilled the WHO SARS case definition.
Article in The Journal of emergency medicine, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Science communication in the media and human mobility during the COVID-19 pandemic: a time series and content analysis.Public health · 2023Article
- The costs of an expanded screening criteria for COVID-19: A modelling study.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2020Article
- Effect of coronavirus infection on the human heart: A scoping review.European journal of preventive cardiology · 2020Article
- Responding to global infectious disease outbreaks: lessons from SARS on the role of risk perception, communication and management.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To differentiate severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) from non-SARS illness, we retrospectively compared 53 patients with probable SARS and 31 patients with non-SARS who were admitted to Mackay Memorial Hospital from April 27 to June 16, 2003. Fever (> 38 degrees C) was the earliest symptom (50/53 SARS vs. 5/31 non-SARS, p < 0.0001), preceding cough by a mean of 4.5 days. The initial chest X-ray study was normal in 22/53 SARS cases versus 5/31 non-SARS cases. SARS patients with an initially normal chest X-ray study developed infiltrates at a mean of 5 +/- 3.44 days after onset of fever (21/22 SARS vs. 0/5 non-SARS). Rapid radiographic progression of unifocal involvement to multifocal infiltrates was seen in 22 of 24 SARS vs. 0 of 26 non-SARS patients (p < 0.0001). Pleural effusion was not present in any SARS patients but was seen in 6 of 26 non-SARS cases (p < 0.0001). Initial lymphopenia, thrombocytopenia, and elevated lactate dehydrogenase were all more common in SARS than non-SARS (p < 0.0001). They may help differentiate SARS from non-SARS if a reliable and rapid diagnostic test is not available.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.