SynthesisHeart and vessels2022
Cardiac involvement in coronavirus disease 2019 assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Heart and vessels, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multimodality Cardiac Imaging in COVID-19 Infection.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- Imaging for Cardiovascular Complications of COVID-19: Cardiac Manifestations in Context.The Canadian journal of cardiology · 2023Review
- Article
- COVID-19-related cardiomyopathy: Can dual-energy computed tomography be a diagnostic tool?World journal of clinical cases · 2023Article
- Prevalence and impact of myocardial injury among patients hospitalized with COVID-19.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Advanced cardiac imaging in the spectrum of COVID-19 related cardiovascular involvement.Clinical imaging · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought to evaluate the prevalence of cardiac involvement in patients with COVID-19 using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. A literature review was performed to investigate the left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) ejection fraction (EF), the prevalence of LV late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), pericardial enhancement, abnormality on T1 mapping, and T2 mapping/T2-weighted imaging (T2WI), and myocarditis (defined by modified Lake Louis criteria). Pooled mean differences (MD) between COVID-19 patients and controls for LVEF and RVEF were estimated using random-effects models. We included data from 10.462 patients with COVID-19, comprising 1.010 non-athletes and 9.452 athletes from 29 eligible studies. The meta-analysis showed a significant difference between COVID-19 patients and controls in terms of LVEF [MD = - 2.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 5.11 to - 0.56, p < 0.001] and RVEF (MD = - 2.69%, 95% CI - 4.41 to - 1.27, p < 0.001). However, in athletes, no significant difference was identified in LVEF (MD = - 0.74%, 95% CI - 2.41 to - 0.93, p = 0.39) or RVEF (MD = - 1.88%, 95% CI - 5.21 to 1.46, p = 0.27). In non-athletes, the prevalence of LV LGE abnormalities, pericardial enhancement, T1 mapping, T2 mapping/T2WI, myocarditis were 27.5% (95%CI 17.4-37.6%), 11.9% (95%CI 4.1-19.6%), 39.5% (95%CI 16.2-62.8%), 38.1% (95%CI 19.0-57.1%) and 17.6% (95%CI 6.3-28.9%), respectively. In athletes, these values were 10.8% (95%CI 2.3-19.4%), 35.4% (95%CI - 3.2 to 73.9%), 5.7% (95%CI - 2.9 to 14.2%), 1.9% (95%CI 1.1-2.7%), 0.9% (0.3-1.6%), respectively. Both LVEF and RVEF were significantly impaired in COVID-19 patients compared to controls, but not in athletes. In addition, the prevalence of myocardial involvement is not negligible in patients with COVID-19.
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.