-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022COVID-19 illness is highly variable, ranging from infection with no symptoms through to pneumonia and life-threatening consequences. Symptoms such as fever, cough, or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
COVID-19 illness is highly variable, ranging from infection with no symptoms through to pneumonia and life-threatening consequences. Symptoms such as fever, cough, or loss of sense of smell (anosmia) or taste (ageusia), can help flag early on if the disease is present. Such information could be used either to rule out COVID-19 disease, or to identify people who need to go for COVID-19 diagnostic tests. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in primary care or to hospital outpatient settings, such as the emergency department or dedicated COVID-19 clinics, has COVID-19.
SEARCH METHODS
We undertook electronic searches up to 10 June 2021 in the University of Bern living search database. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We used artificial intelligence text analysis to conduct an initial classification of documents. We did not apply any language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies were eligible if they included people with clinically suspected COVID-19, or recruited known cases with COVID-19 and also controls without COVID-19 from a single-gate cohort. Studies were eligible when they recruited people presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies that included people who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection while admitted to hospital were not eligible. The minimum eligible sample size of studies was 10 participants. All signs and symptoms were eligible for this review, including individual signs and symptoms or combinations. We accepted a range of reference standards.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract, and full-text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 checklist, and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Analyses were restricted to prospective studies only. We presented sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) space and in dumbbell plots. We estimated summary parameters using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis whenever five or more primary prospective studies were available, and whenever heterogeneity across studies was deemed acceptable.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 90 studies; for this update we focused on the results of 42 prospective studies with 52,608 participants. Prevalence of COVID-19 disease varied from 3.7% to 60.6% with a median of 27.4%. Thirty-five studies were set in emergency departments or outpatient test centres (46,878 participants), three in primary care settings (1230 participants), two in a mixed population of in- and outpatients in a paediatric hospital setting (493 participants), and two overlapping studies in nursing homes (4007 participants). The studies did not clearly distinguish mild COVID-19 disease from COVID-19 pneumonia, so we present the results for both conditions together. Twelve studies had a high risk of bias for selection of participants because they used a high level of preselection to decide whether reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was needed, or because they enrolled a non-consecutive sample, or because they excluded individuals while they were part of the study base. We rated 36 of the 42 studies as high risk of bias for the index tests because there was little or no detail on how, by whom and when, the symptoms were measured. For most studies, eligibility for testing was dependent on the local case definition and testing criteria that were in effect at the time of the study, meaning most people who were included in studies had already been referred to health services based on the symptoms that we are evaluating in this review. The applicability of the results of this review iteration improved in comparison with the previous reviews. This version has more studies of people presenting to ambulatory settings, which is where the majority of assessments for COVID-19 take place. Only three studies presented any data on children separately, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We found data on 96 symptoms or combinations of signs and symptoms. Evidence on individual signs as diagnostic tests was rarely reported, so this review reports mainly on the diagnostic value of symptoms. Results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity. RT-PCR was the most often used reference standard (40/42 studies). Only cough (11 studies) had a summary sensitivity above 50% (62.4%, 95% CI 50.6% to 72.9%)); its specificity was low (45.4%, 95% CI 33.5% to 57.9%)). Presence of fever had a sensitivity of 37.6% (95% CI 23.4% to 54.3%) and a specificity of 75.2% (95% CI 56.3% to 87.8%). The summary positive likelihood ratio of cough was 1.14 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.25) and that of fever 1.52 (95% CI 1.10 to 2.10). Sore throat had a summary positive likelihood ratio of 0.814 (95% CI 0.714 to 0.929), which means that its presence increases the probability of having an infectious disease other than COVID-19. Dyspnoea (12 studies) and fatigue (8 studies) had a sensitivity of 23.3% (95% CI 16.4% to 31.9%) and 40.2% (95% CI 19.4% to 65.1%) respectively. Their specificity was 75.7% (95% CI 65.2% to 83.9%) and 73.6% (95% CI 48.4% to 89.3%). The summary positive likelihood ratio of dyspnoea was 0.96 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.11) and that of fatigue 1.52 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.91), which means that the presence of fatigue slightly increases the probability of having COVID-19. Anosmia alone (7 studies), ageusia alone (5 studies), and anosmia or ageusia (6 studies) had summary sensitivities below 50% but summary specificities over 90%. Anosmia had a summary sensitivity of 26.4% (95% CI 13.8% to 44.6%) and a specificity of 94.2% (95% CI 90.6% to 96.5%). Ageusia had a summary sensitivity of 23.2% (95% CI 10.6% to 43.3%) and a specificity of 92.6% (95% CI 83.1% to 97.0%). Anosmia or ageusia had a summary sensitivity of 39.2% (95% CI 26.5% to 53.6%) and a specificity of 92.1% (95% CI 84.5% to 96.2%). The summary positive likelihood ratios of anosmia alone and anosmia or ageusia were 4.55 (95% CI 3.46 to 5.97) and 4.99 (95% CI 3.22 to 7.75) respectively, which is just below our arbitrary definition of a 'red flag', that is, a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5. The summary positive likelihood ratio of ageusia alone was 3.14 (95% CI 1.79 to 5.51). Twenty-four studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms, mostly combining olfactory symptoms. By combining symptoms with other information such as contact or travel history, age, gender, and a local recent case detection rate, some multivariable prediction scores reached a sensitivity as high as 90%.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Most individual symptoms included in this review have poor diagnostic accuracy. Neither absence nor presence of symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out the disease. The presence of anosmia or ageusia may be useful as a red flag for the presence of COVID-19. The presence of cough also supports further testing. There is currently no evidence to support further testing with PCR in any individuals presenting only with upper respiratory symptoms such as sore throat, coryza or rhinorrhoea. Combinations of symptoms with other readily available information such as contact or travel history, or the local recent case detection rate may prove more useful and should be further investigated in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. The diagnostic accuracy of symptoms for COVID-19 is moderate to low and any testing strategy using symptoms as selection mechanism will result in both large numbers of missed cases and large numbers of people requiring testing. Which one of these is minimised, is determined by the goal of COVID-19 testing strategies, that is, controlling the epidemic by isolating every possible case versus identifying those with clinically important disease so that they can be monitored or treated to optimise their prognosis. The former will require a testing strategy that uses very few symptoms as entry criterion for testing, the latter could focus on more specific symptoms such as fever and anosmia.
Topics: Aged; Ageusia; Anosmia; Artificial Intelligence; COVID-19; COVID-19 Testing; Child; Cough; Dyspnea; Fatigue; Fever; Hospitals; Humans; Outpatients; Pharyngitis; Primary Health Care; Prospective Studies; SARS-CoV-2; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 35593186
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013665.pub3 -
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 -
International Journal of Preventive... 2021Evidence showed that partial or complete loss of smell and taste might be a possible primary symptom of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19). This study aimed to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Evidence showed that partial or complete loss of smell and taste might be a possible primary symptom of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19). This study aimed to systematically review and pool all available evidence on the olfactory and gustatory dysfunction in COVID-19 patients.
METHODS
In this systematic review, a comprehensive search was carried out systematically through e-databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science (WoS); that was limited to English-language studies published from 2019 up to 6 May 2020. Afterward, all studies reported the taste and smell dysfunction in the COVID-19 patients were included. The quality of the studies was assessed by the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The pooled prevalence of olfactory and gustatory dysfunction was estimated using the random effects meta-analysis method.
RESULTS
Among 28 eligible included studies in this systematic review, finally, 22 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. According to the random effect meta-analysis, the global pooled prevalence (95% confidence interval) of any olfactory dysfunction, anosmia, and hyposmia was 55% (40%-70%), 40% (22%-57%), and 40% (20%-61%) respectively. The pooled estimated prevalence of any gustatory dysfunction, ageusia, and dysgeusia was 41% (23%-59%), 31% (3%-59%), and 34% (19%-48%) respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Olfactory and gustatory dysfunction is prevalent among COVID-19 patients. Therefore, olfactory and gustatory dysfunction seems to be part of important symptoms and notify for the diagnosis of COVID-19, especially in the early phase of the infection.
PubMed: 35070203
DOI: 10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_484_20 -
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 -
The International Journal of... Jul 2023The current pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is accompanied with a rapid increase of reports and papers detailing its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The current pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is accompanied with a rapid increase of reports and papers detailing its neurological effects and symptoms. The virus infection causes respiratory illness named by the world health organization as corona virus 19 (COVID-19).This systematic review aims to study and summarize the different neurological manifestations of this virus. All articles published and indexed via Pubmed, Medline and Google Scholar databases between January 1st 2020 and February 28th 2021 that reported neurological symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 are reviewed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.We included data from 113 articles: eight prospective studies, 25 retrospective studies and the rest were case reports/series. COVID-19 can present with central nervous system manifestations, such as headache, encephalitis and encephalopathy, peripheral nervous system manifestations, such as anosmia, ageusia and Guillian Barre syndrome, and skeletal muscle manifestations, such as myalgia and myasthenia gravis. Our systematic review showed that COVID-19 can be manifested by a wide spectrum of neurological symptoms reported either in the early stage or within the course of the disease. However, a detailed comprehension of these manifestations is required and more studies are needed in order to improve our scientific knowledge and to develop preventive and therapeutic measures to control this pandemic.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Nervous System Diseases; Comprehension; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34433369
DOI: 10.1080/00207454.2021.1973000 -
Revista Da Associacao Medica Brasileira... Feb 2021Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections can affect the nervous system, triggering problems such as the Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), an...
BACKGROUND
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections can affect the nervous system, triggering problems such as the Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), an association that can bring complications to the patient.
OBJECTIVE
This scoping review aimed to clarify the clinical features and analyze patients with GBS associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, looking at morbidity, mortality, and neurological outcomes.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The search was conducted through Medline, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHAL, Latin-American and Caribbean Literature in Health Sciences (LILACS), clinicaltrials.gov, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Observational studies, published after 2019, describe patients with GBS associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. There were no language restrictions while selecting the studies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three authors, Kleyton Santos de Medeiros, Luíza Thomé de Araújo Macêdo, and Wederson Farias de Souza, independently screened the search results using titles and abstracts. Duplicate studies were excluded. The same authors then went through the entire text to determine whether the studies met the inclusion criteria. Discrepancies were resolved by other reviewers, Ana Paula Ferreira Costa, Ayane Cristine Sarmento, and Ana Katherine Gonçalves. Finally, the selection of the studies was summarized in a PRISMA flow diagram.
MAIN RESULTS
Main manifestations were fever, coughing, dyspnea, sore throat, ageusia, anosmia, and respiratory failure, in addition to paresthesia of the upper and lower limbs, tetraparesis, facial diplegia, areflexia, asthenia, mastoid pain, acute ataxia, fatigue, numbness, swallowing disorder, and moderate low back pain.
CONCLUSION
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can trigger the GBS, despite the few studies on this topic. Patients had clinical manifestations of COVID-19 infection and neurological manifestations characterizing GBS.
Topics: COVID-19; Dyspnea; Fever; Guillain-Barre Syndrome; Humans; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34406260
DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.67.2.20200716 -
The Canadian Journal of Neurological... Jul 2022Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been associated with various neurological and atypical head/eyes/ears/nose/throat (HEENT) manifestations. We sought to review the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been associated with various neurological and atypical head/eyes/ears/nose/throat (HEENT) manifestations. We sought to review the evidence for these manifestations.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compiled studies published until March 31, 2021 that examined non-respiratory HEENT, central, and peripheral nervous system presentations in COVID-19 patients. We included 477 studies for qualitative synthesis and 59 studies for meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Anosmia, ageusia, and conjunctivitis may precede typical upper/lower respiratory symptoms. Central nervous system (CNS) manifestations include stroke and encephalopathy, potentially with brainstem or cranial nerve involvement. MRI studies support CNS para-/postinfectious etiologies, but direct neuroinvasion seems very rare, with few cases detecting Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the CNS. Peripheral nervous system (PNS) manifestations include muscle damage, Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), and its variants. There was moderate-to-high study heterogeneity and risk of bias. In random-effects meta-analyses, anosmia/ageusia was estimated to occur in 56% of COVID-19 patients (95% CI: 0.41-0.71, I2:99.9%), more commonly than in patients without COVID-19 (OR: 14.28, 95% CI: 8.39-24.29, I2: 49.0%). Neurological symptoms were estimated to occur in 36% of hospitalized patients (95% CI: 0.31-0.42, I2: 99.8%); ischemic stroke in 3% (95% CI: 0.03-0.04, I2: 99.2%), and GBS in 0.04% (0.033%-0.047%), more commonly than in patients without COVID-19 (OR[stroke]: 2.53, 95% CI: 1.16-5.50, I2: 76.4%; OR[GBS]: 3.43,1.15-10.25, I2: 89.1%).
CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence is mostly from retrospective cohorts or series, largely in hospitalized or critically ill patients, not representative of typical community-dwelling patients. There remains a paucity of systematically gathered prospective data on neurological manifestations. Nevertheless, these findings support a high index of suspicion to identify HEENT/neurological presentations in patients with known COVID-19, and to test for COVID-19 in patients with such presentations at risk of infection.
Topics: Ageusia; Anosmia; COVID-19; Guillain-Barre Syndrome; Humans; Nervous System Diseases; Pharynx; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; SARS-CoV-2; Stroke
PubMed: 34287109
DOI: 10.1017/cjn.2021.180 -
Journal of Global Health Jun 2021We determined the clinical presentation, risk factors, and pregnancy and perinatal outcomes in pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 and identified if these are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and meta-analysis of data on pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19: Clinical presentation, and pregnancy and perinatal outcomes based on COVID-19 severity.
BACKGROUND
We determined the clinical presentation, risk factors, and pregnancy and perinatal outcomes in pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 and identified if these are different based on COVID-19 severity.
METHODS
We included all observational studies on pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 reporting clinical presentation, risk factors, and pregnancy and perinatal outcomes. We included all studies published between Dec/2019-Feb/2021 in Medline, Embase, the WHO COVID-19 databases, and clinicaltrials.gov. The methodological quality of cohort and case-series was assessed using NHLBI criteria.
RESULTS
31 016 pregnant women from 62 studies were included. Women were an average of 30.9 years of age, most (77.7%) were in the third trimester, and 16.4% developed severe COVID-19. Nearly half were asymptomatic, while the most commonly reported symptoms were cough, fever, fatigue, and anosmia/ageusia. About 7% were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), 8% required mechanical ventilation, and 2% of the women died. Almost 80% of women delivered; 48.4% had cesarean births. Among newborns, 23.4% were preterm (<37 weeks), 16.6% were low birth weight, and 23.7% were admitted to neonatal ICU. A total of 21 stillbirths (1.6%) and 24 neonatal deaths (1.6%) were recorded, while 50 babies (3.5%) were COVID-19 positive. Studies comparing pregnant women with severe and non-severe COVID-19 showed that women with severe COVID-19 were 3.7 years older and the risk of severe COVID-19 was 1.5 times higher among women >35 years. The risk of severe COVID-19 was significantly higher among women who were obese, had smoked, diabetic, and had pre-eclampsia. The risk of preterm birth was almost 2.4 folds among women with severe COVID-19.
CONCLUSIONS
Our review suggests a heightened risk of COVID-19 severity and adverse pregnancy and perinatal outcomes among women with certain demographic and health profiles. These findings can inform the formation of current guidelines; however, these should be constantly updated as the global COVID-19 scenario unfolds.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO: CRD42020182048.
Topics: Adult; COVID-19; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pandemics; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Pregnancy Outcome; Pregnant Women; Premature Birth; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34221361
DOI: 10.7189/jogh.11.05018 -
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 -
Revista Cientifica Odontologica... 2021To assess the prevalence of taste disorders in children and adolescents diagnosed with coronavirus infection according to the evidence reported in the scientific...
AIM
To assess the prevalence of taste disorders in children and adolescents diagnosed with coronavirus infection according to the evidence reported in the scientific literature.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review of articles published between December 19, 2019, and December 20, 2020 in the Medline, Lilacs, BVS, Cochrane, SCOPUS and ScienceDirect databases. The information search strategy was based on the classic PRISMA flow diagram. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias.
RESULTS
443 articles were found in six databases, and a total of 7 articles were included after evaluation according to the selection criteria. The articles addressed the variable of taste disorders in three ways: ageusia, dysgeusia and hypogeusia; finding that this clinical manifestation was present from the beginning of the infection.
CONCLUSIONS
The prevalence of taste disorders in children and adolescents diagnosed with coronavirus infection is from 3.3% to 26.9%.
PubMed: 38465279
DOI: 10.21142/2523-2754-0902-2021-061