Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33242148›Full record

SynthesisWiener klinische Wochenschrift2021

Clinical manifestations of COVID-19 in the general population: systematic review.

Rodrigo da Rosa Mesquita, Luiz Carlos Francelino Silva Junior, Fernanda Mayara Santos Santana, Tatiana Farias de Oliveira, Rafaela Campos Alcântara, Gabriel Monteiro Arnozo, Etvaldo Rodrigues da Silva Filho, Aisla Graciele Galdino Dos Santos, Euclides José Oliveira da Cunha, Saulo Henrique Salgueiro de Aquino and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 204 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
204citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

204 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Effect of 1% HInternational dental journal · 2024
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

144 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

11 authors.

Rodrigo da Rosa MesquitaDepartment of Medicine, Federal University of Alagoas, Arapiraca, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8212-4853
Luiz Carlos Francelino Silva JuniorDepartment of Medicine, Federal University of Alagoas, Arapiraca, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9934-4174
Fernanda Mayara Santos SantanaDepartment of Medicine, Federal University of Alagoas, Arapiraca, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6920-937X
Tatiana Farias de OliveiraDepartment of Medicine, Federal University of Alagoas, Arapiraca, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4186-6287
Rafaela Campos AlcântaraDepartment of Medicine, Federal University of Alagoas, Arapiraca, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7956-4233
Gabriel Monteiro ArnozoDepartment of Medicine, Federal University of Alagoas, Arapiraca, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8567-7085
Etvaldo Rodrigues da Silva FilhoDepartment of Medicine, Federal University of Alagoas, Arapiraca, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7144-1709
Aisla Graciele Galdino Dos SantosDepartment of Medicine, Federal University of Alagoas, Arapiraca, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2119-3855
Euclides José Oliveira da CunhaDepartment of Medicine, Federal University of Alagoas, Arapiraca, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8467-8657
Saulo Henrique Salgueiro de AquinoDepartment of Medicine, Federal University of Alagoas, Arapiraca, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7458-1790
Carlos Dornels Freire de SouzaDepartment of Medicine, Federal University of Alagoas, Arapiraca, Brazil. carlos.freire@arapiraca.ufal.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7995-1893

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical manifestations of COVID-19 are varied in the general population. This study aimed to systematize the literature regarding clinical manifestations of patients with confirmed COVID-19. A systematic review of the literature was conducted. A total of 8070 scientific productions were found in the databases. Among the studies, 184 met the initial inclusion criteria, with a total of 114,046 patients. After complete reading, 32 studies that did not report clinical manifestations were excluded. The 152 publications finally included a total of 41,409 individuals from at least 23 countries and 26 different clinical manifestations were reported. In percentage terms, 6 symptoms had a general prevalence greater than or equal to 25%, namely, fever (58.66%), cough (54.52%), dyspnea (30.82%), malaise (29.75%), fatigue (28.16%) and sputum/secretion (25.33%). Neurological symptoms (20.82%), dermatological manifestations (20.45%), anorexia (20.26%), myalgia (16.9%), sneezing (14.71%), sore throat (14.41%), rhinitis (14.29%), goosebumps (13.49%), headache (12.17%), chest pain (11.49%) and diarrhea (9.59%) were other common symptoms. Only one study reported dermatological manifestations. The least frequent sign/symptom was hemoptysis (1.65%). In studies with more than 100 patients, the 3 main symptoms were fever (57.93%), cough (54.21%), and dyspnea (30.64%). Dermatological manifestations do not appear among the main symptoms. The identification of all clinical manifestations of COVID-19 is essential for an early diagnosis and the adoption of preventive measures.

Indexed as

COVID-19CoughDyspneaFeverHumansSARS-CoV-2Coronavirus infectionEpidemiologyGeneral symptomsSARS virus

Identifiers

PMID33242148
PMCPMC7689634

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.