Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34545625›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV2022

Are the chilblain-like lesions observed during the COVID-19 pandemic due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2? Systematic review and meta-analysis.

V Sánchez-García, R Hernández-Quiles, E de-Miguel-Balsa, A Docampo-Simón, I Belinchón-Romero, J M Ramos-Rincón

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Pandemic chilblains: Are they SARS-CoV-2-related or not?Clinical immunology (Orlando, Fla.) · 2022
    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

6 authors.

V Sánchez-GarcíaDermatology Department, Alicante University General Hospital-ISABIAL, Alicante, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6680-9716
R Hernández-QuilesDermatology Department, Alicante University General Hospital-ISABIAL, Alicante, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1976-8688
E de-Miguel-BalsaIntensive Care Department, Elche University General Hospital, Alicante, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2117-7257
A Docampo-SimónDermatology Department, Alicante University General Hospital-ISABIAL, Alicante, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4129-1206
I Belinchón-RomeroDermatology Department, Alicante University General Hospital-ISABIAL, Alicante, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6007-7320
J M Ramos-RincónClinical Medicine Department, University Miguel Hernández of Elche, Alicante, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6501-9867

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The expansion of the COVID-19 pandemic has been accompanied by numerous reports of chilblain-like lesions (CLL) in different countries; however, the pathogenesis of these lesions is still unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the prevalence of COVID-19 (diagnosed using PCR and/or serology) in patients with CLL. We undertook a literature search in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus (to 15 March 2021), including studies that reported on the number of patients with CLL with positive PCR and/or serology for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or with a clinical suspicion of COVID-19. Regardless of data heterogeneity, a random-effects model was used to pool prevalence estimates. The meta-analysis included 63 original studies, involving 2919 cases of CLL. A subgroup of these patients underwent diagnostic tests for COVID-19 (PCR: n = 1154, 39.5%; serology: n = 943, 32.3%). The pooled prevalence of COVID-19 in the overall sample and in the subgroup who were tested for COVID-19 was, respectively: (i) positive PCR: 2.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9% to 3.4%] and 5.5% (95% CI, 3.7-7.7%); (ii) positive serology for SARS-CoV-2: 7.2% (95% CI, 4.7-10.2%) and 11.8% (95% CI, 7.9-16.3%); and (iii) positive PCR and/or serology, 15.2% (95% CI, 10.4-20.7%) and 7.5% (95% CI, 5.1-10.3%). Altogether, a small proportion of diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2, both PCR and serologies, show positive results in patients with CLL.

Indexed as

ChilblainsCOVID-19Diagnostic Tests, RoutineHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID34545625
PMCPMC8657348

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.