Features of creatine-kinase in COVID-19 patients with different ages, clinical types and outcomes: A cohort study

  1. Shanshan Wan
  2. Gaojing Qu
  3. Hui Yu
  4. Haoming Zhu
  5. Guoxin Huang
  6. Lei Chen
  7. Meiling Zhang
  8. Jiangtao Liu
  9. Bin Pei

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objectives

To study the features of creatine-kinase (CK) in COVID-19 patients with different ages, clinical types and outcomes and quantify the relationship between CK value and clinical type.

Methods

All laboratory confirmed COVID-19 patients hospitalized in Xiangyang No.1 People’s Hospital were included. Patients’ general information, clinical type, all CK values and outcome were collected.

Results

The peak median value of CK in cases aged ≥ 71 years old (appeared at T2) was higher than that in cases aged ≤ 70 years old. There was statistical difference between the two groups ( P =0.001). Similarly, the peak in critical cases (appeared at T2) was higher than moderate and severe types, and significant difference were existed among moderate, severe, and critical types ( P =0.000). Moreover, the peak value in death group (appeared at T2) was higher than those in survival group. Significant difference was also found between them ( P =0.000). According to the optimal scale regression model, the CK value ( P =0.000) and age ( P =0.000) were associated with the clinical type.

Conclusions

Difference of the CK in different ages, clinical types, and outcomes were significant. The results of the optimal scale regression model are helpful to judge the clinical type of COVID-19 patients.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.28.20221093: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: The study was approved by the ethics review board of Xiangyang No.1 People’s Hospital (No. 2020GCP012) and registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry as ChiCTR2000031088.
    Consent: Informed consent from patients has been exempted since this study does not involve patients’ personal privacy neither incur greater than the minimal risk.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    2.4 Statistical analysis: All statistical analyses were performed through SPSS 20.0.
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)
    All graphs were processed through GraphPad Prism 8.0 and Photoshop CC 14.2 software.
    GraphPad
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)
    Photoshop
    suggested: (Adobe Photoshop, RRID:SCR_014199)

    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 10.1101/2020.10.28.20221093v1 on medRxiv