ReviewReviews in medical virology2021
SARS-CoV: Lessons learned; opportunities missed for SARS-CoV-2.
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.
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.
- Downregulation of sCD40 and sCTLA4 in Recovered COVID-19 Patients with Comorbidities.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- SARS-CoV-2: lessons from both the history of medicine and from the biological behavior of other well-known viruses.Future microbiology · 2021Review
- SARS-CoV: Lessons learned; opportunities missed for SARS-CoV-2.Reviews in medical virology · 2021Review
- Viral RNA in City Wastewater as a Key Indicator of COVID-19 Recrudescence and Containment Measures Effectiveness.Frontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.