Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33427157›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology and infection2021

Non-specific blood tests as proxies for COVID-19 hospitalisation: are there plausible associations after excluding noisy predictors?

G Ishikawa, G Argenti, C B Fadel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

G IshikawaProfessor and researcher, Universidade Tecnologica Federal do Parana (UTFPR), Ponta Grossa, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-2942-3571
G ArgentiResearcher, Postgraduate Programme in Health Sciences, Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa (UEPG), Ponta Grossa, Brazil.
C B FadelProfessor and researcher, Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa (UEPG), Ponta Grossa, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study applied causal criteria in directed acyclic graphs for handling covariates in associations for prognosis of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. To identify non-specific blood tests and risk factors as predictors of hospitalisation due to COVID-19, one has to exclude noisy predictors by comparing the concordance statistics (area under the curve - AUC) for positive and negative cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Predictors with significant AUC at negative stratum should be either controlled for their confounders or eliminated (when confounders are unavailable). Models were classified according to the difference of AUC between strata. The framework was applied to an open database with 5644 patients from Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein in Brazil with SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription - polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) exam. C-reactive protein (CRP) was a noisy predictor: hospitalisation could have happened due to causes other than COVID-19 even when SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR is positive and CRP is reactive, as most cases are asymptomatic to mild. Candidates of characteristic response from moderate-to-severe inflammation of COVID-19 were: combinations of eosinophils, monocytes and neutrophils, with age as risk factor; and creatinine, as risk factor, sharpens the odds ratio of the model with monocytes, neutrophils and age.

Indexed as

Hematologic TestsCOVID-19HospitalizationHumansPrognosisRisk FactorsSeverity of Illness IndexCOVID-19C-reactive proteincreatinineeosinophilshospitalisationlaboratory testsmonocytesneutrophilsprediction

Identifiers

PMID33427157
PMCPMC7844186

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.