Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32572155›Full record

SynthesisModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2020

A systematic review of pathological findings in COVID-19: a pathophysiological timeline and possible mechanisms of disease progression.

Samuel B Polak, Inge C Van Gool, Danielle Cohen, Jan H von der Thüsen, Judith van Paassen

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 277 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
277citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
11.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

277 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 512 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Murine models of pulmonary fibrosis: mechanisms, limitations and translational insights.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Natural SARS-CoV-2 infection in farmed minksFrontiers in veterinary science · 2026
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Insect-specific Alphamesonivirus-1 (Journal of virology · 2025
    Article
  20. Article

217 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Samuel B Polak *Department of Intensive Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Inge C Van Gool *Department of Intensive Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Danielle CohenDepartment of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Jan H von der ThüsenDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9699-4860
Judith van PaassenDepartment of Intensive Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. J.van_Paassen@lumc.nl.
Leiden University Medical Center · NLErasmus MC · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, much has been learned regarding its clinical course, prognostic inflammatory markers, disease complications, and mechanical ventilation strategy. Clinically, three stages have been identified based on viral infection, pulmonary involvement with inflammation, and fibrosis. Moreover, low and high elastance phenotypes can be distinguished in mechanically ventilated patients, based on lung mechanics, ventilation-to-perfusion ratio, and CT scans; these two phenotypes have presumed differences in their underlying pathophysiology. Although essential for therapeutic guidance, the pathophysiology of COVID-19 is poorly understood. Here, we systematically reviewed published case reports and case series in order to increase our understanding of COVID-19 pathophysiology by constructing a timeline and correlating histopathological findings with clinical stages of COVID-19. Using PRISMA-IPD guidelines, 42 articles reporting 198 individual cases were included in our analysis. In lung samples (n = 131 cases), we identified three main histological patterns: epithelial (n = 110, 85%), with reactive epithelial changes and DAD; vascular (n = 76, 59%) with microvascular damage, (micro)thrombi, and acute fibrinous and organizing pneumonia; and fibrotic (n = 28, 22%) with interstitial fibrosis. The epithelial and vascular patterns can present in all stages of symptomatic COVID-19, whereas the fibrotic pattern presents starting at ~3 weeks. Moreover, patients can present with more than one pattern, either simultaneously or consecutively. These findings are consistent with knowledge regarding clinical patterns of viral infection, development of hyperinflammation and hypercoagulability, and fibrosis. Close collaboration among medical staff is necessary in order to translate this knowledge and classification of pathophysiological mechanisms into clinical stages of disease in individual patients. Moreover, further research, including histopathological studies, is warranted in order to develop reliable, clinically relevant biomarkers by correlating these pathological findings with laboratory results and radiological findings, thus, increasing our understanding of COVID-19 and facilitating the move to precision medicine for treating patients.

Indexed as

Disease ProgressionPandemicsBetacoronavirusCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19HumansPneumonia, ViralSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID32572155
PMCPMC7306927
OpenAlexW3036853141

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.