Aspergillosis and Mucormycosis in COVID-19 Patients; a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Fungal infections have increased in number since the onset of this lethal pandemic. The aim of this study is to assess risk factors and case fatality in COVID-19 cases with aspergillosis or mucormycosis. Systematic review and meta-analysis was done according to PRISMA guidelines. Data bases used were Google scholar, Pakmedinet, PUBMED and MEDLINE. 21 case reports and case series of mucormycosis in COVID-19 patients were identified and mean age was 56.3 years (36 males and 12 females). The most common comorbidity was diabetes and site was Rhino orbital mucormycosis. Case fatality of 48 combined cases was calculated to be 52%. 19 articles of aspergillosis were included. Diabetes was the most common comorbidity in cases. The number of male cases were more than females. Incidence of aspergillosis in critically sick COVID-19 patients was calculated to be 9.3%. Case fatality was calculated to be 51.2%. Screening can be a beneficial tool for decreasing the morbidity and mortality.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.01.21261458: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Data bases used were Google scholar, Pakmedinet, PUBMED and MEDLINE. Google scholarsuggested: (Google Scholar, RRID:SCR_008878)MEDLINEsuggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)Data of outcome variables was entered in Microsoft Excel. Microsoft Excelsuggested: (Microsoft Excel, RRID:SCR_016137)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 …SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.01.21261458: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Data bases used were Google scholar, Pakmedinet, PUBMED and MEDLINE. Google scholarsuggested: (Google Scholar, RRID:SCR_008878)MEDLINEsuggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)Data of outcome variables was entered in Microsoft Excel. Microsoft Excelsuggested: (Microsoft Excel, RRID:SCR_016137)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.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-
