A simple laboratory parameter facilitates early identification of COVID-19 patients

  1. Qilin Li
  2. Xiuli Ding
  3. Geqing Xia
  4. Zhi Geng
  5. Fenghua Chen
  6. Lin Wang
  7. Zheng Wang

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The total number of COVID-19 patients since the outbreak of this infection in Wuhan, China has reached 40000 and are still growing. To facilitate triage or identification of the large number of COVID-19 patients from other patients with similar symptoms in designated fever clinics, we set to identify a practical marker that could be conveniently utilized by first-line health-care workers in clinics. To do so, we performed a case-control study by analyzing clinical and laboratory findings between PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 positive patients (n=52) and SARS-CoV-2 negative patients (n=53). The patients in two cohorts all had similar symptoms, mainly fever and respiratory symptoms. The rates of patients with leukocyte counts (normal or decreased number) or lymphopenia (two parameters suggested by current National and WHO COVID-19 guidelines) had no differences between these two cohorts, while the rate of eosinopenia (decreased number of eosinophils) in SARS-CoV-2 positive patients (79%) was much higher than that in SARS-CoV-2 negative patients (36%). When the symptoms were combined with eosinopenia, this combination led to a diagnosis sensitivity and specificity of 79% and 64%, respectively, much higher than 48% and 53% when symptoms were combined with leukocyte counts (normal or decreased number) and/ or lymphopenia. Thus, our analysis reveals that eosinopenia may be a potentially more reliable laboratory predictor for SARS-CoV-2 infection than leukocyte counts and lymphopenia recommended by the current guidelines.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.02.13.20022830: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: This study was approved by Wuhan Union Hospital Ethics Committee.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    All statistical analyses were carried out by SPSS 20.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA).
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.02.13.20022830v1 on medRxiv