ArticleBiology2022
Sensitivity and Specificity of Patient-Reported Clinical Manifestations to Diagnose COVID-19 in Adults from a National Database in Chile: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unveiling the genitourinary phenotype of long COVID: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International urology and nephrology · 2026Pooled it
- Unveiling the Oral Lesions, Dysgeusia and Osteonecrosis Related to COVID-19: A Comprehensive Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
(1) Background: The diagnosis of COVID-19 is frequently made on the basis of a suggestive clinical history and the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in respiratory secretions. However, the diagnostic accuracy of clinical features is unknown. (2) Objective: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of patient-reported clinical manifestations to identify cases of COVID-19. (3) Methodology: Cross-sectional study using data from a national registry in Chile. Infection by SARS-CoV-2 was confirmed using RT-PCR in all cases. Anonymised information regarding demographic characteristics and clinical features were assessed using sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratios. A multivariable logistic regression model was constructed to combine epidemiological risk factors and clinical features. (4) Results: A total of 2,187,962 observations were available for analyses. Male participants had a mean age of 43.1 ± 17.5 years. The most common complaints within the study were headache (39%), myalgia (32.7%), cough (31.6%), and sore throat (25.7%). The most sensitive features of disease were headache, myalgia, and cough, and the most specific were anosmia and dysgeusia/ageusia. A multivariable model showed a fair diagnostic accuracy, with a ROC AUC of 0.744 (95% CI 0.743-0.746). (5) Discussion: No single clinical feature was able to fully confirm or exclude an infection by SARS-CoV-2. The combination of several demographic and clinical factors had a fair diagnostic accuracy in identifying patients with the disease. This model can help clinicians tailor the probability of COVID-19 and select diagnostic tests appropriate to their setting.
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.