Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33946171›Full record

SynthesisViruses2021

Utility of Routine Laboratory Biomarkers to Detect COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Jana Suklan, James Cheaveau, Sarah Hill, Samuel G Urwin, Kile Green, Amanda Winter, Timothy Hicks, Anna E Boath, Ashleigh Kernohan, D Ashley Price and 3 more

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

Synthesis in Viruses, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. White Blood Cells, COVID-19, and Mendelian Randomization.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022
    Article
  3. Leukocyte ratios are useful early predictors for adverse outcomes of COVID-19 infection.Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo · 2022
    Article
  4. COVID19 biomarkers: What did we learn from systematic reviews?Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022
    Review
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

13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jana SuklanNIHR Newcastle In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative, Translational and Clinical Research Institute, William Leech Building, Medical School, Newcastle University, Newcastle NE2 4HH, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8665-6593
James CheaveauDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Royal Victoria Infirmary, The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4LP, UK.
Sarah HillHealth Economics Group, Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4AX, UK.
Samuel G UrwinNIHR Newcastle In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative, The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, William Leech Building, Medical School, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4304-1358
Kile GreenNIHR Newcastle In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative, Translational and Clinical Research Institute, William Leech Building, Medical School, Newcastle University, Newcastle NE2 4HH, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4777-5458
Amanda WinterNIHR Newcastle In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative, The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, William Leech Building, Medical School, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH, UK.
Timothy HicksNIHR Newcastle In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative, The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, William Leech Building, Medical School, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0942-696X
Anna E BoathHealth Economics Group, Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4AX, UK.
Ashleigh KernohanHealth Economics Group, Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4AX, UK.
D Ashley PriceNIHR Newcastle In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative, Translational and Clinical Research Institute, William Leech Building, Medical School, Newcastle University, Newcastle NE2 4HH, UK.
A Joy AllenNIHR Newcastle In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative, Translational and Clinical Research Institute, William Leech Building, Medical School, Newcastle University, Newcastle NE2 4HH, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3222-0396
Eoin MoloneyHealth Economics Group, Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4AX, UK.
Sara GraziadioNIHR Newcastle In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative, The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, William Leech Building, Medical School, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH, UK.
Newcastle University · GBNewcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBNIHR Leeds In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative · GBRoyal Victoria Infirmary · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

No routine laboratory biomarkers perform well enough in diagnosing COVID-19 in isolation for them to be used as a standalone diagnostic test or to help clinicians prioritize patients for treatment. Instead, other diagnostic tests are needed. The aim of this work was to statistically summarise routine laboratory biomarker measurements in COVID-19-positive and -negative patients to inform future work. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were performed. The search included names of commonly used, routine laboratory tests in the UK NHS, and focused on research papers reporting laboratory results of patients diagnosed with COVID-19. A random effects meta-analysis of the standardized mean difference between COVID-19-positive and -negative groups was conducted for each biomarker. When comparing reported laboratory biomarker results, we identified decreased white blood cell, neutrophil, lymphocyte, eosinophil, and platelet counts; while lactate dehydrogenase, aspartate aminotransferase, and alanine aminotransferase were elevated in COVID-19-positive compared to COVID-19-negative patients. Differences were identified across a number of routine laboratory biomarkers between COVID-19-positive and -negative patients. Further research is required to identify whether routine laboratory biomarkers can be used in the development of a clinical scoring system to aid with triage of patients.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Tests, RoutineBiomarkersCOVID-19HumansUnited KingdomBiomarkersbiomarkerCOVID-19diagnosismeta-analysissystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33946171
PMCPMC8147047
OpenAlexW3159834553

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.