Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33002041›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2020

Clinical laboratory parameters associated with severe or critical novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jude Moutchia, Pratik Pokharel, Aldiona Kerri, Kaodi McGaw, Shreeshti Uchai, Miriam Nji, Michael Goodman

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 121 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Increased Levels of Galectin-3 in Critical COVID-19.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.

Jude MoutchiaBamenda Regional Hospital, Bamenda, Cameroon.ORCID 0000-0002-4892-9471
Pratik PokharelEHESP-French School of Public Health, Paris, France.
Aldiona KerriEHESP-French School of Public Health, Paris, France.
Kaodi McGawEHESP-French School of Public Health, Paris, France.
Shreeshti UchaiEHESP-French School of Public Health, Paris, France.
Miriam NjiDepartment of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, United States of America.
Michael GoodmanDepartment of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, United States of America.
École des Hautes Études en Santé Publique · FREmory University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo date, several clinical laboratory parameters associated with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity have been reported. However, these parameters have not been observed consistently across studies. The aim of this review was to assess clinical laboratory parameters which may serve as markers or predictors of severe or critical COVID-19. METHODS AND

findingsWe conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and Google Scholar databases from 2019 through April 18, 2020, and reviewed bibliographies of eligible studies, relevant systematic reviews, and the medRxiv pre-print server. We included hospital-based observational studies reporting clinical laboratory parameters of confirmed cases of COVID-19 and excluded studies having large proportions (>10%) of children and pregnant women. Two authors independently carried out screening of articles, data extraction and quality assessment. Meta-analyses were done using random effects model. Meta-median difference (MMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each laboratory parameter. Forty-five studies in 6 countries were included. Compared to non-severe COVID-19 cases, severe or critical COVID-19 was characterised by higher neutrophil count (MMD: 1.23 [95% CI: 0.58 to 1.88] ×109 cells/L), and lower lymphocyte, CD4 and CD8 T cell counts with MMD (95% CI) of -0.39 (-0.47, -0.31) ×109 cells/L, -204.9 (-302.6, -107.1) cells/μl and -123.6 (-170.6, -76.6) cells/μl, respectively. Other notable results were observed for C-reactive protein (MMD: 36.97 [95% CI: 27.58, 46.35] mg/L), interleukin-6 (MMD: 17.37 [95% CI: 4.74, 30.00] pg/ml), Troponin I (MMD: 0.01 [0.00, 0.02] ng/ml), and D-dimer (MMD: 0.65 [0.45, 0.85] mg/ml).

conclusionsRelative to non-severe COVID-19, severe or critical COVID-19 is characterised by increased markers of innate immune response, decreased markers of adaptive immune response, and increased markers of tissue damage and major organ failure. These markers could be used to recognise severe or critical disease and to monitor clinical course of COVID-19.

Indexed as

BetacoronavirusCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19C-Reactive ProteinFibrin Fibrinogen Degradation ProductsHumansInterleukin-6Lymphocyte CountObservational Studies as TopicPandemicsPneumonia, ViralSARS-CoV-2Severity of Illness IndexTroponin IC-Reactive ProteinFibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Productsfibrin fragment DIL6 protein, humanInterleukin-6Troponin I

Identifiers

PMID33002041
PMCPMC7529271
OpenAlexW3023776146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.