-
European Journal of Internal Medicine Oct 2021Single studies support the presence of several post-COVID-19 symptoms; however, no meta-analysis differentiating hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients has been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Single studies support the presence of several post-COVID-19 symptoms; however, no meta-analysis differentiating hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients has been published to date. This meta-analysis analyses the prevalence of post-COVID-19 symptoms in hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients recovered from COVID-19 .
METHODS
MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases, as well as medRxiv and bioRxiv preprint servers were searched up to March 15, 2021. Peer-reviewed studies or preprints reporting data on post-COVID-19 symptoms collected by personal, telephonic or electronic interview were included. Methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We used a random-effects models for meta-analytical pooled prevalence of each post-COVID-19 symptom, and I² statistics for heterogeneity. Data synthesis was categorized at 30, 60, and ≥90 days after .
RESULTS
From 15,577 studies identified, 29 peer-reviewed studies and 4 preprints met inclusion criteria. The sample included 15,244 hospitalized and 9011 non-hospitalized patients. The methodological quality of most studies was fair. The results showed that 63.2, 71.9 and 45.9% of the sample exhibited ≥one post-COVID-19 symptom at 30, 60, or ≥90days after onset/hospitalization. Fatigue and dyspnea were the most prevalent symptoms with a pooled prevalence ranging from 35 to 60% depending on the follow-up. Other post-COVID-19 symptoms included cough (20-25%), anosmia (10-20%), ageusia (15-20%) or joint pain (15-20%). Time trend analysis revealed a decreased prevalence 30days after with an increase after 60days .
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis shows that post-COVID-19 symptoms are present in more than 60% of patients infected by SARS-CoV‑2. Fatigue and dyspnea were the most prevalent post-COVID-19 symptoms, particularly 60 and ≥90 days after.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Peer Review; Prevalence; SARS-CoV-2; Survivors
PubMed: 34167876
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2021.06.009 -
American Journal of Otolaryngology 2021The aim of the study was to conduct a systematic review of the literature to investigate the time of onset and duration of symptoms of loss of smell and taste in...
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the study was to conduct a systematic review of the literature to investigate the time of onset and duration of symptoms of loss of smell and taste in patients diagnosed with COVID-19.
METHODS
Two independent authors performed a systematic review of the Medline/PubMed, SCOPUS, COCHRANE, Lilacs and Web of Science electronic databases. The time of onset and duration of symptoms were considered primary outcomes. The sex and age of individuals, the geographical location of the study, the prevalence of symptoms, other associated symptoms, associated comorbidities, and the impact on quality of life and eating habits were considered secondary outcomes.
RESULTS
Our search generated 17 articles. Many of the studies reported that the onset of anosmia and ageusia occurred 4 to 5 days after the manifestation of other symptoms of the infection and that these symptoms started to disappear after one week, with more significant improvements in the first two weeks.
CONCLUSION
The present study concludes that the onset of symptoms of loss of smell and taste, associated with COVID-19, occurs 4 to 5 days after other symptoms, and that these symptoms last from 7 to 14 days. Findings, however, varied and there is therefore a need for further studies to clarify the occurrence of these symptoms. This would help to provide early diagnosis and reduce contagion by the virus.
Topics: Ageusia; Anosmia; COVID-19; Humans; Time Factors
PubMed: 33445036
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2020.102889 -
Life (Basel, Switzerland) Aug 2020Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients exhibited protean clinical manifestations. Olfactory and gustatory abnormalities (anosmia and ageusia) were observed in...
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients exhibited protean clinical manifestations. Olfactory and gustatory abnormalities (anosmia and ageusia) were observed in COVID-19 patients, but the reported prevalence varied. In this systematic review, the prevalence of olfactory and gustatory abnormalities (OGA) was evaluated in laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients. On 8 May 2020, 14,506 articles were screened, while 12 of them were enrolled. A total of 1739 COVID-19 patients were analyzed, with a wide range of prevalence observed (5.6-94%). The pooled prevalence was 48.5% with high heterogeneity (, 98.8%; < 0.0001). In total, 15.5% had OGA as their first symptom (, 22.6%; = 0.27) among the patients analyzed. Contradictory to COVID-19 negative controls, patients with COVID-19 had a higher risk of OGA (odds ratio, 5.3; , 66.5%; = 0.03). In conclusion, approximately half of COVID-19 patients had OGA, and one-seventh of them had OGA as their initial symptoms. OGA were cardinal symptoms of COVID-19, which may serve as clues for early diagnosis. Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 was suggested in patients with OGA during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure timely diagnosis and appropriate quarantine.
PubMed: 32842563
DOI: 10.3390/life10090158 -
Journal of Dental Research Feb 2021This living systematic review aims to summarize evidence on the prevalence of oral signs and symptoms in patients with COVID-19. The review was reported per the PRISMA...
This living systematic review aims to summarize evidence on the prevalence of oral signs and symptoms in patients with COVID-19. The review was reported per the PRISMA checklist, and the literature search was conducted in 6 databases and in gray literature. Studies published in any language mentioning oral symptoms and signs in patients with COVID-19 were included. The risk of bias was assessed by the Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools. The certainty of evidence was evaluated through GRADE assessment. After a 2-step selection, 40 studies were included: 33 cross-sectional and 7 case reports. Overall, 10,228 patients (4,288 males, 5,770 females, and 170 unknown) from 19 countries were assessed. Gustatory impairment was the most common oral manifestation, with a prevalence of 45% (95% CI, 34% to 55%; = 99%). The pooled eligible data for different taste disorders were 38% for dysgeusia and 35% for hypogeusia, while ageusia had a prevalence of 24%. Taste disorders were associated with COVID-19 (odds ratio [OR], 12.68; 95% CI, 6.41 to 25.10; = 63%; < 0.00001), mild/moderate severity (OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.25 to 3.49; = 66%; = 0.005), and female patients (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.23 to 2.17; = 70%; = 0.0007). Oral mucosal lesions presented multiple clinical aspects, including white and erythematous plaques, irregular ulcers, small blisters, petechiae, and desquamative gingivitis. Tongue, palate, lips, gingiva, and buccal mucosa were affected. In mild cases, oral mucosal lesions developed before or at the same time as the initial respiratory symptoms; however, in those who required medication and hospitalization, the lesions developed approximately 7 to 24 d after onset symptoms. Therefore, taste disorders may be common symptoms in patients with COVID-19 and should be considered in the scope of the disease's onset and progression. Oral mucosal lesions are more likely to present as coinfections and secondary manifestations with multiple clinical aspects (PROSPERO CRD42020184468).
Topics: COVID-19; Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Humans; Male; Mouth Diseases; Mouth Mucosa; Prevalence; Taste Disorders
PubMed: 32914677
DOI: 10.1177/0022034520957289 -
Chemical Senses Jan 2022Chemosensory scientists have been skeptical that reports of COVID-19 taste loss are genuine, in part because before COVID-19 taste loss was rare and often confused with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Chemosensory scientists have been skeptical that reports of COVID-19 taste loss are genuine, in part because before COVID-19 taste loss was rare and often confused with smell loss. Therefore, to establish the predicted prevalence rate of taste loss in COVID-19 patients, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 376 papers published in 2020-2021, with 241 meeting all inclusion criteria. Drawing on previous studies and guided by early meta-analyses, we explored how methodological differences (direct vs. self-report measures) may affect these estimates. We hypothesized that direct measures of taste are at least as sensitive as those obtained by self-report and that the preponderance of evidence confirms taste loss is a symptom of COVID-19. The meta-analysis showed that, among 138,897 COVID-19-positive patients, 39.2% reported taste dysfunction (95% confidence interval: 35.34%-43.12%), and the prevalence estimates were slightly but not significantly higher from studies using direct (n = 18) versus self-report (n = 223) methodologies (Q = 0.57, df = 1, P = 0.45). Generally, males reported lower rates of taste loss than did females, and taste loss was highest among middle-aged adults. Thus, taste loss is likely a bona fide symptom of COVID-19, meriting further research into the most appropriate direct methods to measure it and its underlying mechanisms.
Topics: Adult; Ageusia; COVID-19; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 35171979
DOI: 10.1093/chemse/bjac001 -
Life (Basel, Switzerland) Nov 2021The diagnosis of COVID-19 is made using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) but its sensitivity varies from 20 to 100%. The presence of gustatory... (Review)
Review
Exploring the Clinical Utility of Gustatory Dysfunction (GD) as a Triage Symptom Prior to Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) in the Diagnosis of COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.
BACKGROUND
The diagnosis of COVID-19 is made using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) but its sensitivity varies from 20 to 100%. The presence of gustatory dysfunction (GD) in a patient with upper respiratory tract symptoms might increase the clinical suspicion of COVID-19.
AIMS
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), negative likelihood ratio (LR-) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of using GD as a triage symptom prior to RT-PCR.
METHODS
PubMed and Embase were searched up to 20 June 2021. Studies published in English were included if they compared the frequency of GD in COVID-19 adult patients (proven by RT-PCR) to COVID-19 negative controls in case control or cross-sectional studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies.
RESULTS
21,272 COVID-19 patients and 52,298 COVID-19 negative patients were included across 44 studies from 21 countries. All studies were of moderate to high risk of bias. Patients with GD were more likely to test positive for COVID-19: DOR 6.39 (4.86-8.40), LR+ 3.84 (3.04-4.84), LR- 0.67 (0.64-0.70), pooled sensitivity 0.37 (0.29-0.47) and pooled specificity 0.92 (0.89-0.94). While history/questionnaire-based assessments were predictive of RT-PCR positivity (DOR 6.62 (4.95-8.85)), gustatory testing was not (DOR 3.53 (0.98-12.7)). There was significant heterogeneity among the 44 studies (I = 92%, < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
GD is useful as a symptom to determine if a patient should undergo further testing, especially in resource-poor regions where COVID-19 testing is scarce. Patients with GD may be advised to quarantine while repeated testing is performed if the initial RT-PCR is negative.
FUNDING
None.
PubMed: 34947846
DOI: 10.3390/life11121315 -
Neurology India Jan 2024The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has strained global healthcare and financial infrastructures. Neurological manifestations of COVID-19 have gained...
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has strained global healthcare and financial infrastructures. Neurological manifestations of COVID-19 have gained recognition, emphasizing the need for comprehensive research in this area. This systematic review aims to comprehensively examine the neurological manifestations and complications associated with COVID-19 and assess their prevalence, impact on patient outcomes, and potential relationships with comorbidities, while emphasizing the significance of ongoing research in this field. We conducted a systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct, and ResearchGate databases was conducted to identify eligible studies focusing on COVID-19 patients, reporting neurological symptoms or complications, and published between 2020 and 2022 in English. The data extracted is performed in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Two independent reviewers assessed study quality and bias using the AMSTAR 2 scale before inclusion. This systematic includes 12 systematic reviews and meta-analysis with 191,412 participants and average age of 60 years. Neurological symptoms included headaches, dizziness, anosmia, and ageusia. Complications ranged from cerebrovascular events to Guillain-Barré syndrome. Comorbidities, such as hypertension and diabetes, exacerbated severity. Mortality rates associated with neurological manifestations varied from 29.1% to 84.8%. The study underscores the complex neurological impact of COVID-19, affecting patients across age groups. Ongoing research is vital to understand mechanisms and develop targeted interventions, improving patient care and addressing pandemic consequences. This review provides a holistic view of COVID-19's neurological effects, emphasizing the need for sustained research efforts and collaborative endeavors to combat the neurological issues.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Nervous System Diseases
PubMed: 38442994
DOI: 10.4103/neurol-india.Neurol-India-D-24-00003 -
Chemical Senses Jan 2023Chemosensory scientists have been skeptical that reports of COVID-19 taste loss are genuine, in part because before COVID-19 taste loss was rare and often confused with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Chemosensory scientists have been skeptical that reports of COVID-19 taste loss are genuine, in part because before COVID-19 taste loss was rare and often confused with smell loss. Therefore, to establish the predicted prevalence rate of taste loss in COVID-19 patients, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 376 papers published in 2020-2021, with 235 meeting all inclusion criteria. Drawing on previous studies and guided by early meta-analyses, we explored how methodological differences (direct vs. self-report measures) may affect these estimates. We hypothesized that direct measures of taste are at least as sensitive as those obtained by self-report and that the preponderance of evidence confirms taste loss is a symptom of COVID-19. The meta-analysis showed that, among 138,015 COVID-19-positive patients, 36.62% reported taste dysfunction (95% confidence interval: 33.02%-40.39%), and the prevalence estimates were slightly but not significantly higher from studies using direct (n = 15) versus self-report (n = 220) methodologies (Q = 1.73, df = 1, P = 0.1889). Generally, males reported lower rates of taste loss than did females, and taste loss was highest among middle-aged adults. Thus, taste loss is likely a bona fide symptom of COVID-19, meriting further research into the most appropriate direct methods to measure it and its underlying mechanisms.
Topics: Male; Adult; Middle Aged; Female; Humans; COVID-19; Ageusia; SARS-CoV-2; Olfaction Disorders; Taste Disorders; Smell; Taste
PubMed: 38100383
DOI: 10.1093/chemse/bjad043 -
Journal of Medical Virology May 2021A meta-analysis was performed to identify patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presenting with gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms during the first and second... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A meta-analysis was performed to identify patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presenting with gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms during the first and second pandemic waves and investigate their association with the disease outcomes. A systematic search in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and EMBASE was performed up to July 25, 2020. The pooled prevalence of the GI presentations was estimated using the random-effects model. Pairwise comparison for the outcomes was performed according to the GI manifestations' presentation and the pandemic wave of infection. Data were reported as relative risk (RR), or odds ratio and 95% confidence interval. Of 125 articles with 25,252 patients, 20.3% presented with GI manifestations. Anorexia (19.9%), dysgeusia/ageusia (15.4%), diarrhea (13.2%), nausea (10.3%), and hematemesis (9.1%) were the most common. About 26.7% had confirmed positive fecal RNA, with persistent viral shedding for an average time of 19.2 days before being negative. Patients presenting with GI symptoms on admission showed a higher risk of complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome (RR = 8.16), acute cardiac injury (RR = 5.36), and acute kidney injury (RR = 5.52), intensive care unit (ICU) admission (RR = 2.56), and mortality (RR = 2.01). Although not reach significant levels, subgroup-analysis revealed that affected cohorts in the first wave had a higher risk of being hospitalized, ventilated, ICU admitted, and expired. This meta-analysis suggests an association between GI symptoms in COVID-19 patients and unfavorable outcomes. The analysis also showed improved overall outcomes for COVID-19 patients during the second wave compared to the first wave of the outbreak.
Topics: Ageusia; Anorexia; COVID-19; Databases, Factual; Diarrhea; Dysgeusia; Feces; Gastroenterology; Hematemesis; Hospitalization; Humans; Nausea; Pandemics; Prevalence; SARS-CoV-2; Virus Shedding; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 33527440
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.26836 -
Journal of Global Health Dec 2020It is of paramount importance to understand the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in schools, which could support the decision-making about educational facilities closure or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
It is of paramount importance to understand the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in schools, which could support the decision-making about educational facilities closure or re-opening with effective prevention and control measures in place.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the extent of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools. We performed risk of bias evaluation of all included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).
RESULTS
2178 articles were retrieved and 11 studies were included. Five cohort studies reported a combined 22 student and 21 staff index cases that exposed 3345 contacts with 18 transmissions (overall infection attack rate (IAR): 0.08%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.00%-0.86%). IARs for students and school staff were 0.15% (95% CI = 0.00%-0.93%) and 0.70% (95% CI = 0.00%-3.56%) respectively. Six cross-sectional studies reported 639 SARS-CoV-2 positive cases in 6682 study participants tested [overall SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate: 8.00% (95% CI = 2.17%-16.95%). SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate was estimated to be 8.74% (95% CI = 2.34%-18.53%) among students, compared to 13.68% (95% CI = 1.68%-33.89%) among school staff. Gender differences were not found for secondary infection (OR = 1.44, 95% CI = 0.50-4.14, = 0.49) and SARS-CoV-2 positivity (OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.72-1.13, = 0.36) in schools. Fever, cough, dyspnea, ageusia, anosmia, rhinitis, sore throat, headache, myalgia, asthenia, and diarrhoea were all associated with the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (based on two studies). Overall, study quality was judged to be poor with risk of performance and attrition bias, limiting the confidence in the results.
CONCLUSIONS
There is limited high-quality evidence available to quantify the extent of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools or to compare it to community transmission. Emerging evidence suggests lower IAR and SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate in students compared to school staff. Future prospective and adequately controlled cohort studies are necessary to confirm this finding.
Topics: Adolescent; COVID-19; Child; Cross-Sectional Studies; Disease Transmission, Infectious; Female; Humans; Male; SARS-CoV-2; Schools; Students
PubMed: 33437465
DOI: 10.7189/jogh.10.021104