Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32812365›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of laboratory hematology2021

Interest of the cellular population data analysis as an aid in the early diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Marc Vasse, Marie-Christine Ballester, Degnile Ayaka, Dmitry Sukhachev, Frédérique Delcominette, Florence Habarou, Emilie Jolly, Elena Sukhacheva, Tiffany Pascreau, Éric Farfour

Open access · bronzeAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of laboratory hematology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Marc VasseBiology Department, Foch Hospital& UMR-S 1176, Suresnes and Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8784-7209
Marie-Christine BallesterEmergency Unit, Foch Hospital, Suresnes, France.
Degnile AyakaBiology Department, Foch Hospital, Suresnes, France.
Dmitry SukhachevLabTech Ltd, Saint-Petersburg, Russia.
Frédérique DelcominetteBiology Department, Foch Hospital, Suresnes, France.
Florence HabarouBiology Department, Foch Hospital, Suresnes, France.
Emilie JollyBiology Department, Foch Hospital, Suresnes, France.
Elena SukhachevaBeckman Coulter Eurocenter, Nyon, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2854-4742
Tiffany PascreauBiology Department, Foch Hospital& UMR-S 1176, Suresnes and Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.
Éric FarfourBiology Department, Foch Hospital, Suresnes, France.
Hôpital Foch · FRComtech Telecommunications (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is characterized by a high contagiousness requiring isolation measures. At this time, diagnosis is based on the positivity of specific RT-PCR and/or chest computed tomography scan, which are time-consuming and may delay diagnosis. Complete blood count (CBC) can potentially contribute to the diagnosis of COVID-19. We studied whether the analysis of cellular population data (CPD), provided as part of CBC-Diff analysis by the DxH 800 analyzers (Beckman Coulter), can help to identify SARS-CoV-2 infection.

methodsCellular population data of the different leukocyte subpopulations were analyzed in 137 controls, 322 patients with proven COVID-19 (COVID+), and 285 patients for whom investigations were negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-). When CPD of COVID+ were different from controls and COVID- patients, we used receiver operating characteristic analysis to test the discriminating capacity of the individual parameters. Using a random forest classifier, we developed the algorithm based on the combination of 4 monocyte CPD to discriminate COVID+ from COVID- patients. This algorithm was tested prospectively in a series of 222 patients referred to the emergency unit.

resultsAmong the 222 patients, 86 were diagnosed as COVID-19 and 60.5% were correctly identified using the discriminating protocol. Among the 136 COVID- patients, 10.3% were misclassified (specificity 89.7%, sensitivity 60.5%). False negatives were observed mainly in patients with a low inflammatory state whereas false positives were mainly seen in patients with sepsis.

conclusionConsideration of CPD could constitute a first step and potentially aid in the early diagnosis of COVID-19.

Indexed as

COVID-19 TestingEarly DiagnosisLeukocyte CountPandemicsSARS-CoV-2AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCOVID-19COVID-19 Nucleic Acid TestingDecision TreesFalse Negative ReactionsFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumanscellular population dataDxH800 analyzerSARS-CoV-2 diagnosis

Identifiers

PMID32812365
PMCPMC7461522
OpenAlexW3049327429

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.