ArticleRespiratory investigation2022
Evaluation of thorax computed tomographic findings in COVID-19 variant cases.
Article in Respiratory investigation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Role of Ionizing Radiation for Diagnosis and Treatment against COVID-19: Evidence and Considerations.Cells · 2022Review
- Comparison of temporal evolution of computed tomography imaging features in COVID-19 and influenza infections in a multicenter cohort study.European journal of radiology open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBecause of genetic mutations occurring during viral replication, new SARS-CoV-2 variants will continue to emerge. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, thorax computed tomographic (CT) findings have played a crucial role in the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with COVID-19. In this study, we compared the thorax CT findings of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 variants (variant group) with those of patients infected with the non-variant strain (non-variant group) to assess if thorax CT findings may be utilized to discriminate between the groups. Furthermore, we compared demographic and laboratory data between the groups.
methodsThe study comprised a total of 77 patients who presented to our hospital with a preliminary diagnosis of COVID-19 based on clinical symptoms, a positive oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal swab RT-PCR testing, and thorax CT examinations. Patients' laboratory and demographic features as well as thorax CT findings were retrospectively evaluated, and the results were grouped according to RT-PCR results.
resultsThere were 42 patients in the non-variant group and 35 patients in the variant group. The average age of patients infected with the non-variant strain, alpha variant, and gamma variant was 63.52 ± 14.87 years, 54.86 ± 14.31 years, and 59.4 ± 17.79 years, respectively. The average age of the variant group was significantly lower than that of the non-variant group. There was no significant difference in thorax CT findings between the groups, and consolidation, ground glass densities, and cobblestone pattern in the bilateral lower lobes and peripheral areas were the most common thorax CT findings in both the groups.
conclusionThere is no significant difference in thorax CT findings between the variant and non-variant groups. Therefore, clinical and laboratory characteristics should take precedence over thorax CT findings for distinguishing between patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 variants and the non-variant strain.
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.