Observational studyDermatologic therapy2021
No antibody response in cutaneous manifestations associated with COVID-19: An observational study of 64 cases with microbiological and clinical characterization.
Observational study in Dermatologic therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe microbiological diagnosis of skin lesions related to COVID-19 is not well known.
objectivePerform a microbiological diagnosis in COVID19-related cutaneous manifestations.
methodsA cross-sectional study was performed with 64 patients with cutaneous manifestations associated with COVID-19 who underwent serological and nasopharyngeal reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for SARS-CoV-2.
resultsOut of the 64 patients, 6 patients had positive RT-PCR, with all of them developing SARS-CoV-2 IgG and 4 of them had positive IgM + IgA. Of the 58 patients with negative RT-PCR, 8 cases had positive IgM + IgA and only one of them had IgG seroconversion. Therefore, the infection was demonstrated in 7 cases (10.9%) and was doubtful in 7 other cases (10.9%) who presented negative RT-PCR and presence of IgA + IgM without subsequent seroconversion of IgG. Fifty patients (78.1%) had negative serological tests. The most frequent cutaneous pattern was pseudo-chilblain (48.4%) followed by maculo-papular pattern (26.6%), urticarial lesions (10.9%), vesicular eruptions (6.3%) and livedoid pattern (4.7%). The maculo-papular pattern showed the highest positivity in RT-PCR (3 cases; 17.6%) and serologies (4 cases; 23.5%). Skin lesions developed after the systemic symptoms in most patients (19 cases; 61.3%).
conclusionsMicrobiological confirmation tests may not be an effective diagnostic technique for COVID-related cutaneous manifestations or that attributed lesions are not related to COVID-19. Confounding factors such as adverse drug reaction, serological cross-reactions with other viruses, the low production of antibodies in asymptomatic or mild forms of COVID-19 or its rapid disappearance, increase diagnostic uncertainty.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.