ArticleDermatologic therapy2020
No SARS-CoV-2 antibody response in 25 patients with pseudo-chilblains.
Article in Dermatologic therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Are the chilblain-like lesions observed during the COVID-19 pandemic due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2? Systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2022Pooled it
- Chilblains outbreak during COVID-19 pandemic: A Type-I interferonopathy?Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · 2022Article
- Dermatological Manifestations of COVID-19 in Children.Indian pediatrics · 2022Review
- Time of Onset of Selected Skin Lesions Associated with COVID-19: A Systematic Review.Dermatology and therapy · 2021Review
- No SARS-CoV-2 antibody response in 25 patients with pseudo-chilblains.Dermatologic therapy · 2020Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chilblain-like acral lesions have been identified in some coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. It has been suggested that these pseudo-chilblains could be a specific marker of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Most patients with these lesions have had negative polymerase chain reactions (PCRs), but some authors believe serology tests are likely to give positive results. We designed a prospective study including all patients with pseudo-chilblains treated in outpatient department in April and May 2020 and then performed SARS-CoV-2 PCR and serology tests on all available patients. We evaluated 59 patients, of whom 17 had undergone PCR before the study period, all with negative results. For the present study, we performed 20 additional PCRs, serology tests in 25 patients, and a parvovirus B19 antibody test in 15 patients. All results were negative. Our findings counter the hypothesis that serology is likely to reveal SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with pseudo-chilblains. One hypothesis for our negative results is that the time period between symptom onset and antibody production is longer in these patients; another is that the lesions are caused by behavioral changes during lockdown rather than SARS-CoV-2 infection. We nevertheless maintain that COVID-19 should be ruled out in people presenting with chilblain-like lesions.
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.