ArticleJournal of global infectious diseases
The Diagnostic and Predictive Value of Biomarkers for Pulmonary Fibrosis in Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019.
Article in Journal of global infectious diseases. 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.
- Progress in the Application of Pirfenidone in Post-COVID-19 Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- State of the Globe: A Glimmer of Hope - Biomarkers for Diagnosing COVID-19 Pulmonary Fibrosis.Journal of global infectious diseasesArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), particularly in older people, dysregulated immune response and aberrant repair can result in varied severity secondary pulmonary fibrosis (PF). By detecting some indicators, the occurrence and prognosis of fibrosis can be measured, providing directions for COVID-19 treatment. Methods: The research study lasted for 3 months and involved 88 COVID-19 patients. According to the chest radiological examination, 47 (53.41%) individuals were found to have no PF, while 41 (46.59%) showed PF. Clinical data such as inflammation markers, imaging findings, blood gas analysis, and hospital stay length were collected. Results: With area under the curve values of 0.7413, 0.7741, and 0.7048, respectively, and the study of the receiver operating characteristic curve demonstrated that mucin 1 (MUC1), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and CXC chemokine receptor 10 (CXCL10) could diagnose the presence of COVID-19 PF. To evaluate the possibility of PF following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection, we established particular values for MUC1, CEA, and CXCL10 (1.296 ng/ml, 4.315 ng/ml, and 32.77 ng/ml, respectively). The survival curve for hospital days indicated that the length of hospital stays positively correlated with these three factors ( Conclusion: The results of this study suggested that the MUC1, CEA, and CXCL10 can be employed to explore the severity of secondary PF in COVID-19.
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.