Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34090979›Full record

SynthesisThe Canadian journal of cardiology2021

Kawasaki Disease Shock Syndrome vs Classical Kawasaki Disease: A Meta-analysis and Comparison With SARS-CoV-2 Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome.

Loubna Lamrani, Cedric Manlhiot, Matthew D Elias, Nadine F Choueiter, Audrey Dionne, Ashraf S Harahsheh, Michael A Portman, Brian W McCrindle, Nagib Dahdah

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Canadian journal of cardiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Kawasaki Disease-Associated Cytokine Storm Syndrome.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

9 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Loubna LamraniDivision of Pediatric Cardiology, CHU Ste-Justine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada; McGill University, School of Medicine, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Cedric ManlhiotDepartment of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Matthew D EliasDivision of Cardiology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Nadine F ChoueiterChildren's Hospital at Montefiore, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA.
Audrey DionneDepartment of Cardiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Ashraf S HarahshehDivision of Cardiology, Children's National Hospital, Department of Pediatrics, George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences, Washington, DC, USA.
Michael A PortmanSeattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Brian W McCrindleHospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Nagib DahdahDivision of Pediatric Cardiology, CHU Ste-Justine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada. Electronic address: nagib.dahdah.hsj@ssss.gouv.qc.ca.
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine · CAAlbert Einstein College of Medicine · USBoston Children's Hospital · USChildren's Hospital of Philadelphia · USGeorge Washington University · USJohns Hopkins University · USSeattle Children's Hospital · USSickKids Foundation · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe emergence of increasing reports worldwide of a severe inflammatory process and shock in pediatric patients resembling Kawasaki disease (KD)-and, more specifically, Kawasaki disease shock syndrome (KDSS)-prompted us to explore KDSS in a preamble of a systematic comparison between the 2 conditions.

methodsWe completed a systematic review of KDSS and performed a meta-analysis comparison between reported KDSS cases and KD controls.

resultsA total of 10 case-control series were included in the meta-analysis. Patients with KDSS were older (38.4 ± 30.6 vs 21.9 ± 19.5 months; P < 0.001) compared with standard KD with equal sex distribution and completeness of clinical diagnostic criteria. KDSS present higher C-reactive protein (59.4 ± 29.2 mg/dL vs 20.8 ± 14.8 mg/dL; P < 0.001), lower albumin (2.7 ± 0.5 g/dL vs 3.3 ± 0.5 g/dL; P < 0.01), and lower platelets (255 ± 149 109/L vs 394 ± 132 109/L; P < 0.001) but only borderline higher white blood cells (P = 0.06). Differences in alanine transaminase, aspartate aminotransferase, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were nonsignificant. The odds of intravenous immunoglobulin resistance (44.4% vs 9.6%; (P < 0.001) and the hospital length of stay (10.9 ± 5.8 vs 5.0 ± 3.0 days; P < 0.001) were higher in KDSS, as were the odds of coronary-artery abnormalities (33.9% vs 8.6%; P < 0.001).

conclusionsThis first meta-analysis on KDSS vs KD represents a basis for future works on KDSS and opens the opportunity for future multicentre studies in the search of causal relationships between presenting elements and the eventual complications of KDSS. The similarities between SARS-CoV-2 multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and KDSS open new horizons to the understanding of the etiology and pathophysiology related to KDSS.

Indexed as

Mucocutaneous Lymph Node SyndromeSystemic Inflammatory Response SyndromeChild, PreschoolCOVID-19Diagnosis, DifferentialHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID34090979
PMCPMC8180353
OpenAlexW3166138010

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.