ArticleCureus2024
Evaluation of Pulmonary Function Tests, Dyspnea Scores, and Antibody Levels at the Six-Month Follow-Up of Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19 Pneumonia.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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, 1 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes various signs and symptoms, especially lung involvement, during acute infection and in the long term. In this study, we evaluated the follow-up results of patients with chronic COVID-19 over a 24-week period.
methodsThe study included a total of 100 post-COVID-19 patients (confirmed by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of a nasopharyngeal swab) who presented to the post-COVID-19 outpatient clinic with chronic COVID-19 symptoms 12 weeks after diagnosis, between April and June 2021. All of the patients in the study had a history of hospitalization and were grouped based on the severity of the acute COVID-19 infection (moderate: group 1, severe: group 2).
resultsA comparison of pulmonary function test parameters at week 12 showed that forced expiratory volume (FEV1)%, forced vital capacity (FVC)%, diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO)%, and DLCO divided by the alveolar volume (DLCO/VA)% values were significantly lower in group 2 than in group 1 (p<0.001 for all). At week 24, only DLCO and DLCO/VA values were lower (<0.001 for both). The mean modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scores of groups 1 and 2 were 1.4 ± 0.9 and 2.8 ± 1.1 at 12 weeks and improved to 0.9 ± 0.6 and 1.6 ± 0.6 at 24 weeks, respectively. The groups' mMRC scores at 12 and 24 weeks differed significantly (p=0.001, p=0.02). There was no difference in levels of IgM and IgG antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein between the groups at 12 or 24 weeks (p>0.05 for all).
conclusionImprovement in pulmonary function parameters and mMRC scores may take longer than 24 weeks, especially in patients with severe COVID-19. Our results indicated that the levels of IgM and IgG neutralizing antibodies did not differ between patients with moderate and severe illness at 12 or 24 weeks.
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.