ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Comparison between Suspected and Confirmed COVID-19 Respiratory Patients: What Is beyond the PCR Test.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Updates in Management of SARS-CoV-2 Infection.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
COVID-19 modified the healthcare system. Nasal-pharyngeal swab (NPS), with real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase (PCR), is the gold standard for the diagnosis; however, there are difficulties related to the procedure that may postpone it. The study aims to evaluate whether other elements than the PCR-NPS are reliable and confirm the diagnosis of COVID-19. This is a cross-sectional study on data from the Lung Unit of Pavia (confirmed) and at the Emergency Unit of Palermo (suspected). COVID-19 was confirmed by positive NPS, suspected tested negative. We compared clinical, laboratory and radiological variables and performed Logistic regression to estimate which variables increased the risk of COVID-19. The derived ROC-AUCcurve, assessed the accuracy of the model to distinguish between COVID-19 suspected and confirmed. We selected 50 confirmed and 103 suspected cases. High Reactive C-Protein (OR: 1.02; CI95%: 0.11-1.02), suggestive CT-images (OR: 11.43; CI95%: 3.01-43.3), dyspnea (OR: 10.48; CI95%: 2.08-52.7) and respiratory failure (OR: 5.84; CI95%: 1.73-19.75) increased the risk of COVID-19, whereas pleural effusion decreased the risk (OR: 0.15; CI95%: 0.04-0.63). ROC confirmed the discriminative role of these variables between suspected and confirmed COVID-19 (AUC 0.91). Clinical, laboratory and imaging features predict the diagnosis of COVID-19, independently from the NPS result.
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.