Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32808446›Full record

ReviewReviews in medical virology2021

SARS-CoV: Lessons learned; opportunities missed for SARS-CoV-2.

Ian M Davis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Reviews in medical virology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Ian M DavisInstitute of Interdisciplinary Research, University of Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6522-8036

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

SARS-CoV-2 and Covid-19 have made a retrospective analysis of other coronavirus diseases important, so this article reviews the history of the SARS-CoV viral disease from 2003. Standard and clinical chemistry diagnostics were developed in response to the outbreak. The response to SARS is examined to determine if there were lessons learned before it disappeared in June and July 2003. Various diagnostic approaches were developed and implemented to assist in the rapid identification of patients and treatment of their illness, yet many of the approaches required days or weeks from the onset of fever to show statistical significance. Most of the therapeutic methods used during the outbreak relied on treating symptoms of the underlying illness, such as lower respiratory infections and systemic infection, rather than effectively suppressing or curtailing replication of the virus. Retrospective studies are examined to determine how the SARS outbreak was viewed 10 years on and what the authors hoped would be instructive patterns for possible future pandemics. Implementation of some of these recommendations might have helped ease the current pandemic but were overlooked for budgetary reasons that seem short-sighted at present.

Indexed as

Antiviral AgentsCOVID-19COVID-19 Drug TreatmentHumansSARS-CoV-2Severe Acute Respiratory SyndromeSevere acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirusAntiviral AgentsCOVID-19diagnosticspharmacotherapySARSviral disease

Identifiers

PMID32808446
PMCPMC7460959

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.