Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35966226›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in allergy2022

Neutrophil and Eosinophil Responses Remain Abnormal for Several Months in Primary Care Patients With COVID-19 Disease.

B N Jukema, K Smit, M T E Hopman, C C W G Bongers, T C Pelgrim, M H Rijk, T N Platteel, R P Venekamp, D L M Zwart, F H Rutten and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in allergy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Blood Eosinophils Matter in Post-COVID-19 Pneumonia.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

B N JukemaDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
K SmitDepartment of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
M T E HopmanDepartment of Physiology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
C C W G BongersDepartment of Physiology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
T C PelgrimDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
M H RijkDepartment of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
T N PlatteelDepartment of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
R P VenekampDepartment of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
D L M ZwartDepartment of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
F H RuttenDepartment of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
L KoendermanDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Utrecht University · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLRadboud University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Neutrophil and eosinophil activation and its relation to disease severity has been understudied in primary care patients with COVID-19. In this study, we investigated whether the neutrophil and eosinophil compartment were affected in primary care patients with COVID-19. Methods: COVID-19 patients, aged ≥ 40 years with cardiovascular comorbidity presenting to the general practitioner with substantial symptoms, partaking in the COVIDSat@Home study between January and April 2021, were included. Blood was drawn during and 3 to 6 months after active COVID-19 disease and analyzed by automated flow cytometry, before and after stimulation with a formyl-peptide (fNLF). Mature neutrophil and eosinophil markers at both time points were compared to healthy controls. A questionnaire was conducted on disease symptoms during and 3 to 6 months after COVID-19 disease. Results: The blood of 18 COVID-19 patients and 34 healthy controls was analyzed. During active COVID-19 disease, neutrophils showed reduced CD10 ( Conclusion: Automated flow cytometry analysis reveals specific mature neutrophil and eosinophil activation patterns in primary care patients with COVID-19 disease, during and 3 to 6 months after active disease. This suggests that the neutrophil and eosinophil compartment are long-term affected by COVID-19 in primary care patients. This indicates that these compartments may be involved in the pathogenesis of long COVID.

Indexed as

activationflow cytometrygranulocyteslong COVIDprimary careSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID35966226
PMCPMC9365032
OpenAlexW4288033454

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.