ArticleCurrent health sciences journal
Long Term Respiratory Follow-Up for COVID-19 Patients a Multicenter Study.
Article in Current health sciences journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic initiated officially in October 2020. Since then several observations have been made regarding the disease and its symptoms. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe included eighty seven in our observational study. Our main aim was to investigate their long term respiratory follow-up in correlation with their initial radiological and laboratory findings and values. The nose swab PCR test for COVID-19 was used for diagnosis. Patients were monitored at 3 and 6 months after their hospital reception whereas basic parameters of health condition (smoking, PO2, SPO2, WBC, CXR, CRP, intercurrent findings, days of nursing, colchicine administration) in joint with gender and age were recorded.
resultsMales seem more susceptible to the viral disease than females in a ratio 1,8:1. The parameters FEV1 and FVC (as % relative changes) were not affected, apart from the DLCO to which CRP (in loge+1 transformation) and SPO2 showed a statistically significant effect.
conclusionNone of these patients were intubated, or admitted to the intensive care unit. The respiratory function is affected by the virus and the effect is reversed within the first three months. Males are more affected and the radiological and laboratory findings are associated with the respiratory functions.
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.