ArticleBMJ open2023
How to diagnose COVID-19 in family practice? Usability of complete blood count as a COVID-19 diagnostic tool: a cross-sectional study in Turkey.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biochemical insights and microRNA profiling via next-generation sequencing in moderate and severe COVID-19 cases.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Article
- The Diagnostic Value of Kinetics of NLR to Identify Secondary Pulmonary Bacterial Infection Among COVID-19 Patients at Single Tertiary Hospital in Indonesia.International journal of general medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCOVID-19 is currently diagnosed in hospital settings. An easy and practical diagnosis of COVID-19 is needed in primary care. For this purpose, the usability of complete blood count in the diagnosis of COVID-19 was investigated.
designRetrospective, cross-sectional study.
settingSingle-centre study in a tertiary university hospital in Erzurum, Turkey.
participantsBetween March 2020 and February 2021, patients aged 18-70 years who applied to the hospital and underwent both complete blood count and reverse-transcription-PCR tests for COVID-19 were included and compared. Conditions affecting the test parameters (oncological-haematological conditions, chronic diseases, drug usage) were excluded. OUTCOME MEASURE: The complete blood count and COVID-19 results of eligible patients identified using diagnostic codes [U07.3 (COVID-19) or Z03.8 (observation for other suspected diseases and conditions)] were investigated.
resultsOf the 978 patients included, 39.4% (n=385) were positive for COVID-19 and 60.6% (n=593) were negative. The mean age was 41.5±14.5 years, and 53.9% (n=527) were male. COVID-19-positive patients were found to have significantly lower leucocyte, neutrophil, lymphocyte, monocyte, basophil, platelet and immature granulocyte (IG) values (p<0.001). Neutrophil/lymphocyte, neutrophil/monocyte and IG/lymphocyte ratios were also found to be significantly decreased (p<0.001). With logistic regression analysis, low lymphocyte count (OR 0.695; 95% CI 0.597 to 0.809) and low red cell distribution width-coefficient of variation (RDW-CV) (OR 0.887; 95% CI 0.818 to 0.962) were significantly associated with COVID-19 positivity. In receiver operating characteristic analysis, the cut-off values of lymphocyte and RDW-CV were 0.745 and 12.35, respectively.
conclusionAlthough our study was designed retrospectively and reflects regional data, it is important to determine that low lymphocyte count and RDW-CV can be used in the diagnosis of COVID-19 in primary care.
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.