Comorbidities, clinical signs and symptoms, laboratory findings, imaging features, treatment strategies, and outcomes in adult and pediatric patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

  1. Catherine R. Jutzeler
  2. Lucie Bourguignon
  3. Caroline V. Weis
  4. Bobo Tong
  5. Cyrus Wong
  6. Bastian Rieck
  7. Hans Pargger
  8. Sarah Tschudin-Sutter
  9. Adrian Egli
  10. Karsten Borgwardt
  11. Matthias Walter

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101825
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.20.20103804: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variableData extraction and synthesis: Data extraction tables were created with the following information: 1) publication information (i.e., author, date, language of article, country where the study was performed, study design [case study, case series, or cohort study]16, study population [pediatric/neonatal and adult COVID-19 patients including pregnant women); 2) demographics (i.e., age, sex); 3) clinical signs and symptoms (e.g., cough, fatigue, fever, sputum); 3) comorbidities (e.g., hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases); 4) therapies administered to treat COVID-19 (e.g., antibiotics, antivirals, invasive mechanical ventilation); 5) clinical outcomes (e.g., death, survival, recovery); and 6) complications associated with COVID-19 (e.g., sepsis and shock, ARDS).

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Search strategy and selection criteria: Four bibliographic databases were systematically searched: EMBASE,
    EMBASE
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    PubMed/ Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science.
    Medline
    suggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)
    Heterogeneity between studies was assessed visually by Forest plots, and analytically by I², tau T2, and Cochrane Q.
    Cochrane Q
    suggested: None

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code and data.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations of review: A limitation of the current review was that literature search was limited to articles listed in EMBASE, PubMed/ Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, or identified by hand searches. Considering the pace at which the research in this area is moving forward, it is likely that the findings of the publications described in this paper will be quickly complemented by further research. The literature search also excluded grey literature (e.g., preprints, reports, conference proceedings), the importance of which to this topic is unknown, and thus might have introduced another source of search bias. There is also a probability of publication bias, as well as potential for a search bias. Publication bias is likely to result in studies with more positive results being preferentially submitted and accepted for publication. Moreover, geographical bias cannot be rule out as the majority of the studies (129/ 148) were conducted in China. While symptoms might be quite comparable across countries, comorbidities, treatments, and outcome potentially depends on the country (and its healthcare system). There is also a considerable risk for a reporting bias towards comorbidities, clinical signs and symptoms, laboratory parameters, imaging features, treatment, outcome, and complications that are present. Specifically, only a minority of studies reported a zero when this information was assessed, but absent in patients. Lack of data on absent clinical signs and symptoms might lead ...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.20.20103804v1 on medRxiv