ArticleAging clinical and experimental research2020
Comparison of clinical and microbiological diagnoses for older adults with COVID-19 in Wuhan: a retrospective study.
Article in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A multi-regional, hierarchical-tier mathematical model of the spread and control of COVID-19 epidemics from epicentre to adjacent regions.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe potential differences between a clinical diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (i.e., symptoms without positive virus test) and a microbiological diagnosis (i.e., positive virus test results) of COVID-19 are not known.
aimsThis study explored the differences between the two types of COVID-19 diagnosis among older patients in terms of clinical characteristics and outcomes.
methodsA total of 244 inpatients aged ≥ 60 years with COVID-19 were included in this study, of whom 52 were clinically diagnosed and 192 were microbiologically diagnosed. Clinical and laboratory data on hospital admission and outcomes (discharged or died in hospital) of all patients were retrieved from medical records retrospectively. Patients who met the criteria for clinical diagnosis with negative virus test results were assigned to the clinical diagnosis group, whereas those with positive virus test results were assigned to the microbiological diagnosis group. After univariate analyses, two propensity score analyses [i.e., covariate adjustment using propensity score (CAPS) and propensity score matching (PSM)] were conducted to control bias.
resultsThe clinical and microbiological diagnosis groups demonstrated significant differences in outcomes and in the majority of laboratory findings. After propensity score analyses, many differences between the two groups disappeared and the rate of mortality had no statistically significant difference (P = 0.318 and 0.828 for CAPS and PSM, respectively).
conclusionsPatients with similar signs, symptoms, and laboratory and imaging findings as confirmed COVID-19 cases may have a similar mortality risk, regardless of the virus test results, and require timely intervention to reduce their mortality.
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.