ArticleMedicine2026
Microscopic giant platelets versus automated mean platelet volume for severity assessment in COVID-19.
Article in Medicine, 2026. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
COVID-19-associated coagulopathy (immunothrombosis) contributes to mortality. Automated hematology analyzers are widely used for risk stratification but may not capture morphological platelet abnormalities. We examined whether peripheral blood smear (PBS) findings, particularly giant platelets, are associated with severe COVID-19 beyond automated mean platelet volume (MPV) in hospitalized patients. In this retrospective cohort study, 96 patients with confirmed COVID-19 were classified at hospital admission as mild/moderate (n = 60) or severe (n = 36). Admission PBS samples were independently reviewed by 2 blinded observers. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with severe disease, and ROC analysis compared the discriminatory performance of microscopic giant platelet detection with automated MPV. Giant platelet presence was associated with severe disease after adjustment for age, sex, and diabetes mellitus (OR: 2.86, 95% CI: 1.02-8.07, P = .047); older age and diabetes mellitus were also associated with severity, whereas female sex was inversely associated. The corresponding unadjusted association did not reach conventional statistical significance, and the adjusted estimate had a wide confidence interval. In an exploratory model additionally including MPV, giant platelet presence remained associated with severe disease (OR: 3.88, 95% CI: 1.25-12.01, P = .019), whereas MPV was not associated with severity in the same model (P = .114). Giant platelet detection showed weak stand-alone discrimination (AUC: 0.597, 95% CI: 0.497-0.694), and its discriminatory performance did not differ significantly from that of MPV (AUC: 0.465, 95% CI: 0.349-0.584; DeLong P = .058). In this cohort, giant platelet presence was associated with severe COVID-19 at admission after adjustment for selected baseline covariates; however, the imprecision of the estimate, nonsignificant unadjusted comparison, and weak discriminatory performance indicate that this finding should be considered exploratory. These results do not establish that PBS review improves clinical severity assessment, and external validation in larger prospective cohorts is required.
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.