Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33229625›Full record

SynthesisAging2020

Coagulopathy in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Xiaolin Zhang, Xue Yang, Hongmei Jiao, Xinmin Liu

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Aging, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. COVID19 biomarkers: What did we learn from systematic reviews?Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xiaolin ZhangDepartment of Geriatrics, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing 100034, China.
Xue YangDepartment of Geriatrics, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing 100034, China.
Hongmei JiaoDepartment of Geriatrics, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing 100034, China.
Xinmin LiuDepartment of Geriatrics, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing 100034, China.
Peking University · CNPeking University First Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

COVID-19 patients frequently exhibit coagulation abnormalities and thrombotic events. In this meta-analysis, we investigated the association between coagulopathy and the severity of COVID-19 illness. Using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, WanFang Database, CNKI, and medRxiv, a systematic literature search was conducted for studies published between December 1, 2019 and May 1, 2020. We then analyzed coagulation parameters in COVID-19 patients exhibiting less severe and more severe symptoms. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata14.0 software. A total of 3,952 confirmed COVID-19 patients from 25 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Patients with severe symptoms exhibited higher levels of D-dimer, prothrombin time (PT), and fibrinogen (FIB) than patients with less severe symptoms (SMD 0.83, 95% CI: 0.70-0.97, I

Indexed as

SARS-CoV-2BiomarkersBlood Coagulation DisordersBlood Coagulation TestsCOVID-19Disease SusceptibilityHumansPublication BiasRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificitySeverity of Illness IndexBiomarkerscoagulationcoagulopathycoronavirusCOVID-19disease severity

Identifiers

PMID33229625
PMCPMC7803569
OpenAlexW3109644736

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.