scholarly journals Gastrointestinal and hepatic manifestations of Corona Virus Disease-19 and their relationship to severe clinical course: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 268-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashish Kumar ◽  
Anil Arora ◽  
Praveen Sharma ◽  
Shrihari Anil Anikhindi ◽  
Naresh Bansal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Course ◽  
Virus Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Corona Virus

scholarly journals Risk factors for severe corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients : a systematic review and meta analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lizhen Xu ◽  
Yaqian Mao ◽  
Gang Chen
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Virus Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Body Mass Index ◽  
Elderly Male ◽  
Corona Virus ◽  
Laboratory Test Results ◽  
Male Patients ◽  
Underlying Diseases

AbstractImportanceWith the increasing number of infections for COVID-19, the global health resources are deficient. At present, we don’t have specific medicines or vaccines against novel coronavirus pneumonia (NCP) and our assessment of risk factors for patients with severe pneumonia was limited. In order to maximize the use of limited medical resources, we should distinguish between mild and severe patients as early as possible.ObjectiveTo systematically review the evidence of risk factors for severe corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.Evidence ReviewWe conducted a comprehensive search for primary literature in both Chinese and English electronic bibliographic data bases including China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, Weipu, Chinese Biomedicine Literature Database (CBM-SinoMed), MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register, and Web of science. The American agency for health research and quality (AHRQ) tool were used for assessing risk of bias. Mata-analysis was undertaken using STATA version 15.0.Results20 articles (N=4062 participants) were eligible for this systematic review and meta-analysis. First in this review and meta-analysis, we found that elderly male patients with a high body mass index, high breathing rate and a combination of underlying diseases (such as hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) were more likely to develop into critically ill patients. second, compared with ordinary patients, severe patients had more significant symptom such as fever and dyspnea. Besides, the laboratory test results of severe patients had more abnormal than non-severe patients, such as the elevated levels of white-cell counts, liver enzymes, lactate dehydrogenase, creatine kinase, c-reactive protein and procalcitonin, etc, while the decreased levels of lymphocytes and albumin, etc.InterpretationThis is the first systematic review investigating the risk factors for severe corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. The findings are presented and discussed by different clinical characteristics. Therefore, our review may provide guidance for clinical decision-making and optimizes resource allocation.Key PointsQuestionWhat are the risk factors for severe patients with corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19)?FindingsFirst in this review and meta-analysis, we found that elderly male patients with a high body mass index, high breathing rate and a combination of underlying diseases were more likely to develop into critically ill patients. second, compared with ordinary patients, severe patients had more significant symptom such as fever and dyspnea. Last, we also found that the laboratory test results of severe patients had more abnormal than non-severe patients.MeaningThis review summaried the risk factors of severe COVID-19 patients and aim to provide a basis for early identification of severe patients by clinicians.

scholarly journals Prevalence and severity of corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 127 ◽  
pp. 104371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yong Hu ◽  
Jiazhong Sun ◽  
Zhe Dai ◽  
Haohua Deng ◽  
Xin Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Virus Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Corona Virus

scholarly journals Detection of three pandemic causing coronaviruses from non-respiratory samples: systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chandan Mishra ◽  
Suneeta Meena ◽  
Jitendra Kumar Meena ◽  
Suman Tiwari ◽  
Purva Mathur
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Total Sample ◽  
Urine Samples ◽  
Pathogenic Potential ◽  
Clinical Specimens ◽  
Qrt Pcr ◽  
Corona Virus ◽  
Positive Rate

AbstractSARS-CoV-2 has posed an unprecedented challenge to the world. Pandemics have been caused previously by viruses of this family like Middle East Respiratory Corona Virus (MERS CoV), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus (SARS CoV). Although these viruses are primarily respiratory viruses, but they have been isolated from non-respiratory samples as well. Presently, the detection rate of SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA from different clinical specimens using Real Time Reverse Transcriptase Polymerized Chain Reaction (qRT‐PCR) after onset of symptoms is not yet well established. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to establish the profile of detecting SARS‐CoV‐2, MERS CoV, SARS CoV from different types of clinical specimens other than the respiratory using a standard diagnostic test (qRT‐PCR). A total of 3429 non-respiratory specimens were recorded: SARS CoV (total sample—802), MERS CoV (total sample—155), SARS CoV-2 (total sample—2347). Out of all the samples studied high positive rate was seen for saliva with 96.7% (14/14; 95% CI 87.6–100.0%) for SARS CoV and 57.5% (58/250; 95% CI − 1.2 to 116.2%) for SARS CoV-2, while low detection rate in urine samples for SARS CoV-2 with 2.2% (8/318; 95% CI 0.6–3.7%) and 9.6% (12/61; 95% CI − 0.9 to 20.1%) for SARS CoV but there was relatively higher positivity in urine samples for MERS CoV with detection rate of 32.4% (2/38; 95% CI − 37.3 to 102.1%). In Stool sample positivity was 54.9% (396/779; 95% CI 41.0–68.8%), 45.2% (180/430; 95% CI 28.1–62.3%) and 34.7% (4/38; 95% CI − 29.5 to 98.9%) for SARS CoV-2, MERS CoV, and SARS CoV, respectively. In blood sample the positivity was 33.3% (7/21; 95% CI 13.2–53.5%), 23.7% (42/277; 95% CI 10.5–36.9%) and 2.5% (2/81; 95% CI 0.00–5.8%) for MERS CoV, SARS CoV-2 and SARS CoV respectively. SARS‐CoV‐2 along with previous two pandemic causing viruses from this family, were highly detected stool and saliva. A low positive rate was recorded in blood samples. Viruses were also detected in fluids along with unusual samples like semen and vaginal secretions thus highlighting unique pathogenic potential of SARS‐CoV‐2.

scholarly journals Efficacy of IVIG (Intravenous Immunoglobulin) for Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): a meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 107732
Author(s):  
Huai-rong Xiang ◽  
Xuan Cheng ◽  
Yun Li ◽  
Wen-wen Luo ◽  
Qi-zhi Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intravenous Immunoglobulin ◽  
Virus Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Corona Virus

scholarly journals Identification of genetic variants associated with dengue or West Nile virus disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan E. Cahill ◽  
Samantha Conley ◽  
Andrew T. DeWan ◽  
Ruth R. Montgomery
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
West Nile Virus ◽  
Genetic Variants ◽  
Virus Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
West Nile

scholarly journals Convalescent Plasma Therapy in Severe and Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Penglei Yang ◽  
Jing Wang ◽  
Ruiqiang Zheng ◽  
Rui Tan ◽  
Xianghui Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Virus Disease ◽  
Therapy Group ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Plasma Therapy ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Randomized Controlled Studies

Abstract Background: Convalescent plasma treatment of severe and critically ill Corona Virus Disease 2019(COVID-19) patients is still controversial.Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma in patients with severe COVID-19 infection and critically ill patients, We performed a meta-analysis and systematic review of convalescent plasma therapy in severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients.Methods: We conducted a literature search in electronic data and citations of previously published systematic reviews. We included only randomized controlled studies on convalescent plasma for the treatment of severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients. Results: A total of 7 randomized controlled trials and 1363 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to patients of the control group, there was no difference in clinical improvement (Four studies, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.17, p = 0.22, moderate certainty) and mortality (seven studies, RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.11, p = 0.48, moderate certainty) for patients of convalescent plasma therapy group.Conclusion: Convalescent plasma does not reduce the improvement of symptoms and the risk of death in severely infected and critically ill COVID-19 patients

scholarly journals Cerebrospinal Fluid IgM and Oligoclonal IgG Bands in Multiple Sclerosis: A Meta-Analysis of Prevalence and Prognosis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 1444
Author(s):  
Mattia Fonderico ◽  
Emilio Portaccio ◽  
Lorenzo Razzolini ◽  
Luisa Pastò ◽  
Angelo Bellinvia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Course ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinically Isolated Syndrome ◽  
Relapsing Remitting ◽  
Oligoclonal Igg ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Present Systematic Review ◽  
Oligoclonal Igg Bands

The presence of intrathecal IgM synthesis (ITMS) has been associated with an aggressive multiple sclerosis (MS) clinical course. In the present systematic review, we aimed at assessing the prevalence of ITMS among different MS phenotypes. Moreover, we aimed at quantifying the risk of a second relapse in ITMS positive and oligoclonal IgG bands (OCGBs)-positive patients. We selected clinical studies reporting the ITMS prevalence assessed as oligoclonal IgM Bands (OCMBs), lipid-specific OCMBs (LS-OCMBs), and/or as an intrathecal IgM production > 0% (IgMLoc, Reiber formula). The overall prevalence of ITMS was higher in relapsing-remitting (RR) than clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) patients (40.1% versus 23.8%, p < 0.00001), while was in line with that detected in primary progressive MS (PPMS, 26.7%). Almost all patients (98%) with ITMS had also OCGBs. The risk of having a second relapse was higher in OCGBs positive patients (HR = 2.18, p = 0.007) but much higher in ITMS positive patients (HR = 3.62, p = 0.0005). This study revealed that the prevalence of ITMS is higher in RRMS patients. It suggests that the risk of having a second relapse, previously ascribed to OCGBs, may, to a certain extent, be related to the presence of intrathecal IgM.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document