Differences and similarities in diagnostic methods and treatments for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a scoping review

  1. Alessandro Rolim Scholze
  2. Emiliana Cristina Melo
  3. Carina Bortolato Major
  4. Carolina Fordellone Rosa Cruz
  5. Léia Regina de Souza Alcântara
  6. Camila Dalcol
  7. Fábio Rodrigues Ferreira Seiva
  8. Maria de Fátima Mantovani
  9. Ângela Tais Mattei
  10. Henrique Spaulonci Silveira
  11. Luiz Gustavo de Almeida Chuffa

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Aims

We investigate a range of studies related to COVID-19 with focus on scientific evidence reporting the main diagnosis and treatments of the disease.

Main Methods

Scoping review conducted in the databases, MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, LILACS, Scopus, and Web of Science, and the gray Google Scholar literature, until May 2020. We follow PRISMA-SCR and the recommendations of the Joanna Briggs Institute. The identified studies were independently selected by peers. The qualitative data extracted were synthesized and organized into categories, and the quantitative data were generated through descriptive and inferential statistics.

Key-findings

6060 articles were identified, of which 30 were included in this review. The publications are predominantly from China (n=22, 73.3%), and with a type of cross-sectional study (n=12, 40.0%), followed by a cohort (n=7, 23.0%). Among them, 16 studies addressed the diagnosis, and computed tomography was considered as non-invasive complementary method for detecting and evaluating the progression of COVID-19. Laboratory tests have been used to detect enzymatic or viral activities, and to monitor the inflammation associated with COVID-19. 14 studies included different therapeutic associations, such as Lopinavir/Ritonavir (LPV/r) and Arbidol, Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, Tocilizumab and Remdesivir, and Corticosteroids/Plasminogen.

Significance

The evidence related to diagnostic methods are clear, and include tomography and laboratory tests. Medicinal or associated medications for the treatment of COVID-19, although showing a reduction in signs and COVID-19-related symptoms, can cause adverse effects of mild or severe intensity depending on viral load and inflammatory activity. Additional studies should be performed to identify the most reliable treatment for COVID-19.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.30.20222950: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomization2.4 Charting the data: The form developed in the StArt software helped to extract data, such as country and year of publication, study design (descriptive, cross-sectional, case-control, cohort, ecological, randomized, quasi-experimental trial, systematic review, integrative review, or scoping review), confirmation of COVID-19 by laboratory tests (PCR and/or rapid test) and/or diagnostic imaging (X-ray, ultrasound, tomography and/or resonance), type of treatment of COVID-19 (antimalarial, anti-inflammatory, convalescent plasma, anticoagulant, antibiotic, corticoid, antiretroviral and/or others), drug name, dosage, efficacy (cure, death, clinical improvement, treatment change or ineffectiveness), results and outcomes, conclusions and/or recommendations. 2.5 Collating, summarizing and reporting the results: The extracted qualitative data were synthesized and organized into three categories, characterization of the included studies, diagnoses used for the detection of COVID-19, and associated treatments.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The review questions explored in this study were: What types of diagnostic tests and drug treatments are available for adults and the elderly with COVID-19? 2.2 Identifying relevant studies: A systematic search was carried out between 14 and 15 May 2020, in seven electronic databases: MEDLINE (access via PubMed), Cochrane, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Latin American Bibliographic Information (LILACS), Scopus and Web of Science (WoS), and in gray literature: Google Scholar.
    MEDLINE
    suggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)
    Cochrane
    suggested: (Cochrane Library, RRID:SCR_013000)
    Embase
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    Google Scholar
    suggested: (Google Scholar, RRID:SCR_008878)
    A form for selection, sorting, and data extraction was developed in the StArt software and pre-tested by the researchers.
    StArt
    suggested: (START, RRID:SCR_009394)
    Quantitative data regarding the geographic location of the literature and the type of approach, whether COVID-19 diagnosis and treatment or both, were georeferenced using ArcGIS Software version 10.6.
    ArcGIS
    suggested: (ArcGIS for Desktop Basic, RRID:SCR_011081)
    The other data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, with the support of SPSS software version 20.0.
    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: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:

    IdentifierStatusTitle
    NCT04260594Not yet recruitingClinical Study of Arbidol Hydrochloride Tablets in the Treat…

    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 10.1101/2020.10.30.20222950 on medRxiv