Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34003850›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2021

Evaluating clinical characteristics studies produced early in the Covid-19 pandemic: A systematic review.

Lakshmi Manoharan, Jonathan W S Cattrall, Carlyn Harris, Katherine Newell, Blake Thomson, Mark G Pritchard, Peter G Bannister, Louise Sigfrid, Tom Solomon, Peter W Horby and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 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
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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. The next viral pandemic-where do we stand?Folia microbiologica · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing in the healthcare sector: A clinical prediction model for identifying false negative results.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2021
    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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Lakshmi ManoharanInternational Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) Global Support Centre, Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0588-5947
Jonathan W S CattrallLiverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Carlyn HarrisEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Katherine NewellNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Blake ThomsonNuffield Department of Population Health, Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Mark G PritchardInternational Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) Global Support Centre, Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1726-8989
Peter G BannisterSchool of Medicine, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6279-2651
Louise SigfridInternational Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) Global Support Centre, Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Tom SolomonNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Peter W HorbyInternational Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) Global Support Centre, Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Gail CarsonInternational Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) Global Support Centre, Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Piero OlliaroInternational Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) Global Support Centre, Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
University of Oxford · GBBrighton and Sussex Medical School · GBEmory University · USNational Health Service · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/V033441/1Wellcome Trust 215091/Z/18/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesClinical characterisation studies have been essential in helping inform research, diagnosis and clinical management efforts, particularly early in a pandemic. This systematic review summarises the early literature on clinical characteristics of patients admitted to hospital, and evaluates the quality of evidence produced during the initial stages of the pandemic.

methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE and Global Health databases were searched for studies published from January 1st 2020 to April 28th 2020. Studies which reported on at least 100 hospitalised patients with Covid-19 of any age were included. Data on clinical characteristics were independently extracted by two review authors. Study design specific critical appraisal tools were used to evaluate included studies: the Newcastle Ottawa scale for cohort and cross sectional studies, Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for case series and the Cochrane collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.

resultsThe search yielded 78 studies presenting data on 77,443 people. Most studies (82%) were conducted in China. No studies included patients from low- and middle-income countries. The overall quality of included studies was low to moderate, and the majority of studies did not include a control group. Fever and cough were the most commonly reported symptoms early in the pandemic. Laboratory and imaging findings were diverse with lymphocytopenia and ground glass opacities the most common findings respectively. Clinical data in children and vulnerable populations were limited.

conclusionsThe early Covid-19 literature had moderate to high risk of bias and presented several methodological issues. Early clinical characterisation studies should aim to include different at-risk populations, including patients in non-hospital settings. Pandemic preparedness requires collection tools to ensure observational studies are methodologically robust and will help produce high-quality data early on in the pandemic to guide clinical practice and public health policy. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Available at https://osf.io/mpafn.

Indexed as

CoughCOVID-19C-Reactive ProteinDatabases, FactualFeverHeadacheHumansLymphopeniaPandemicsSARS-CoV-2C-Reactive Protein

Identifiers

PMID34003850
PMCPMC8130955
OpenAlexW3160174188

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.