ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2006
Role of laboratory variables in differentiating SARS-coronavirus from other causes of community-acquired pneumonia within the first 72 h of hospitalization.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of Multiplex RT-PCR with Immobilized Primers for Identification of Infectious Human Pneumonia Pathogens.Molecular biology · 2021Article
- Severe acute respiratory syndrome and coronavirus.Infectious disease clinics of North America · 2010Review
- Clinical relevance of rhinovirus infections among adult hospitalized patients.The Brazilian journal of infectious diseases : an official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious DiseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend that SARS-coronavirus (SARS-CoV) testing be considered in epidemiologically high-risk patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) if no alternative diagnosis is identified after 72 h. The aim of this study was to identify routine laboratory variables that might indicate the need for SARS-CoV testing. Routine hematological/biochemical variables in patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS (2003) were compared with those in consecutive patients hospitalized June-December 2004 with radiologically confirmed CAP. Stepwise logistic regression analyses were performed to identify discriminating variables at baseline and by day 3 of hospitalization. Nasopharyngeal aspiration and antigen detection for influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus using an immunofluorescence assay (IFA) were routinely performed in patients with CAP. Altogether, 181 patients with CAP (who remained undiagnosed by IFA) and 303 patients with SARS were studied. The mean intervals from symptom onset to admission were 3.1 and 2.8 days, respectively (p > 0.05). The etiological agent of CAP was identified retrospectively in only 39% of cases, the majority being bacterial pathogens. At baseline, age and absolute neutrophil count (ANC) were the only independent discriminating variables (p < 0.0001). Using a value of <4.4 x 10(9)/l as the cutoff for ANC, the sensitivity and specificity of ANC for discriminating SARS were 64 and 95%, respectively (AUC 0.90). By day 3 of hospitalization, age (p < 0.0001), change in ANC (p = 0.0003), and change in bilirubin (p = 0.0065) were discriminating variables. A model combining age <65 years, a change in ANC of >-3 x 10(9)/l, and a change in bilirubin of > or =0 mmol/l had a sensitivity of 43% and a specificity of 95% for SARS (AUC 0.90). There are only a few laboratory features (including lymphopenia) that clearly discriminate SARS from other causes of CAP. Nevertheless, when evaluating epidemiologically high-risk patients with CAP and no immediate alternative diagnosis, a low ANC on presentation along with poor clinical and laboratory responses after 72 h of antibiotic treatment may raise the index of suspicion for SARS and indicate a need to perform SARS-CoV testing.
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.