-
European Heart Journal. Digital Health Jun 2022High blood pressure (BP) is the commonest modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, yet its monitoring remains problematic. Wearable cuffless BP devices offer potential... (Review)
Review
AIMS
High blood pressure (BP) is the commonest modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, yet its monitoring remains problematic. Wearable cuffless BP devices offer potential solutions; however, little is known about their validity and utility. We aimed to systematically review the validity, features and clinical use of wearable cuffless BP devices.
METHODS AND RESULTS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, IEEE Xplore and the Cochrane Database till December 2019 for studies that reported validating cuffless BP devices. We extracted information about study characteristics, device features, validation processes, and clinical applications. Devices were classified according to their functions and features. We defined devices with a mean systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) biases of <5 mmHg as valid as a consensus. Our definition of validity did not include assessment of device measurement precision, which is assessed by standard deviation of the mean difference-a critical component of ISO protocol validation criteria. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 tool. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed to summarise the mean biases for SBP and DBP across studies. Of the 430 studies identified, 16 studies (15 devices, 974 participants) were selected. The majority of devices (81.3%) used photoplethysmography to estimate BP against a reference device; other technologies included tonometry, auscultation and electrocardiogram. In addition to BP and heart rate, some devices also measured night-time BP ( = 5), sleep monitoring ( = 3), oxygen saturation ( = 3), temperature ( = 2) and electrocardiogram ( = 3). Eight devices showed mean biases of <5 mmHg for SBP and DBP compared with a reference device and three devices were commercially available. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences between the wearable and reference devices for SBP (pooled mean difference = 3.42 mmHg, 95% CI: -2.17, 9.01, I 95.4%) and DBP (pooled mean = 1.16 mmHg, 95% CI: -1.26, 3.58, I 87.1%).
CONCLUSION
Several cuffless BP devices are currently available using different technologies, offering the potential for continuous BP monitoring. The variation in standards and validation protocols limited the comparability of findings across studies and the identification of the most accurate device. Challenges such as validation using standard protocols and in real-life settings must be overcome before they can be recommended for uptake into clinical practice.
PubMed: 36713001
DOI: 10.1093/ehjdh/ztac021 -
International Journal of Environmental... Dec 2022To investigate the most common physical examination tests (PET) for the screening for referral of patients with back or chest pain caused by serious pathology. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the most common physical examination tests (PET) for the screening for referral of patients with back or chest pain caused by serious pathology.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted. Searches were performed on seven electronic databases between June 2020 and December 2021. Only studies evaluating patients with back and/or chest pain with clear reporting of PETs and prompt patient referrals were included.
RESULTS
316 full texts were included, and these studies had a total of 474/492 patients affected by a serious disease. Only 26 studies of them described suspicion of serious disease due to at least one positive PET. Cardiac/pulmonary auscultation and heartbeats/blood pressure measurements were the most frequently reported tests. None of the reported studies included physiotherapists and chiropractors who reported the use of various tests, such as: cardiac and pulmonary auscultation, lung percussion, costovertebral angle tenderness, and lymph node palpation, highlighting a lack of attention in measuring vital parameters. On the contrary, doctors and nurses reported the assessment of the range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine and hip less frequently.
CONCLUSIONS
Appropriate reporting of PETs is sparse, and their utilization is heterogeneous among different healthcare professionals. Further primary studies are needed to describe PETs results in patients suffering from back and/or chest pain.
Topics: Humans; Low Back Pain; Chest Pain; Thorax; Physical Examination; Referral and Consultation
PubMed: 36554298
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192416418 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2022Insomnia is a common problem in modern society. It is associated with reduced quality of life and impairments in physical and mental health. Listening to music is widely... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Insomnia is a common problem in modern society. It is associated with reduced quality of life and impairments in physical and mental health. Listening to music is widely used as a sleep aid, but it remains unclear if it can actually improve insomnia in adults. This Cochrane Review is an update of a review published in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of listening to music on sleep in adults with insomnia and to assess the influence of specific variables that may moderate the effect.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases and two trials registers up to December 2021. In addition, we handsearched reference lists of included studies, and contacted authors of published studies to identify additional studies eligible for inclusion, including any unpublished or ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing the effects of listening to music with no treatment or treatment as usual (TAU) in adults complaining of sleep difficulties.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened records for eligibility, selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The primary outcomes were sleep quality, insomnia severity, sleep-onset latency, total sleep time, sleep interruption, sleep efficiency and adverse events. Data on the predefined outcome measures were included in meta-analyses when consistently reported by at least two studies that were homogeneous in terms of participants, interventions and outcomes. We undertook meta-analyses using random-effects models.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 studies (eight studies new to this update) comprising 1007 participants. The studies examined the effect of listening to prerecorded music daily, for 25 to 60 minutes, for a period of three days to three months. The risk of bias within the studies varied, with all studies being at high risk of performance bias, because of limited possibilities to blind participants to the music intervention. Some studies were at high risk of detection bias or other bias. Four studies reported funding from national research councils, three studies reported financial support from university sources and one study reported a grant from a private foundation. Five studies did not report any financial support. At the end of the intervention, we found moderate-certainty evidence for improved sleep quality measured with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) in themusic groups compared to no intervention or TAU (mean difference (MD) -2.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.86 to -1.72; 10 studies, 708 participants). The PSQI scale ranges from 0 to 21 with higher scores indicating poorer sleep. The size of the effect indicates an increase in sleep quality of the size of about one standard deviation in favour of the intervention. We found no clear evidence of a difference in the effects of listening to music compared to no treatment or TAU on insomnia severity (MD -6.96, 95% CI -15.21 to 1.28; 2 studies, 63 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found low-certainty evidence that, compared to no treatment or TAU, listening to music may reduce problems with sleep-onset latency (MD -0.60, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.37; 3 studies, 197 participants), total sleep time (MD -0.69, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.23; 3 studies, 197 participants) and sleep efficiency (MD -0.96, 95% CI -1.38 to -0.54; 3 studies, 197 participants), but may have no effect on perceived sleep interruption (MD -0.53, 95% CI -1.47 to 0.40; 3 studies, 197 participants). In addition, three studies (136 participants) included objective measures of sleep-onset latency, total sleep time, sleep efficiency and sleep interruption and showed that listening to music may not improve these outcomes compared to no treatment or TAU. None of the included studies reported any adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this review provide evidence that music may be effective for improving subjective sleep quality in adults with symptoms of insomnia. More research is needed to establish the effect of listening to music on other aspects of sleep as well as the daytime consequences of insomnia.
Topics: Adult; Auscultation; Humans; Music; Quality of Life; Sleep; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders
PubMed: 36000763
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010459.pub3 -
Children (Basel, Switzerland) May 2022Determining the neonatal heart rate immediately after birth is unsatisfactory. Auscultation is inaccurate and provides no documented results. The use of foetal Doppler... (Review)
Review
Determining the neonatal heart rate immediately after birth is unsatisfactory. Auscultation is inaccurate and provides no documented results. The use of foetal Doppler ultrasound has been recognised as a possible method of determining the neonatal heart rate after birth over the last nine years. This review includes all published studies of this approach, looking at accuracy, speed of results, and practical application of the approach. Precordial Doppler ultrasound has been shown to be as accurate as ECG and more accurate than oximetry for the neonatal heart rate, and provides quicker results than either ECG or oximetry. There is the potential for a much improved determination and documentation of the neonatal heart rate using this approach.
PubMed: 35626893
DOI: 10.3390/children9050717 -
Journal of Global Health 2022Frontline health care workers use World Health Organization Integrated Management of Childhood Illnesses (IMCI) guidelines for child pneumonia care in low-resource...
BACKGROUND
Frontline health care workers use World Health Organization Integrated Management of Childhood Illnesses (IMCI) guidelines for child pneumonia care in low-resource settings. IMCI guideline pneumonia diagnostic criterion performs with low specificity, resulting in antibiotic overtreatment. Digital auscultation with automated lung sound analysis may improve the diagnostic performance of IMCI pneumonia guidelines. This systematic review aims to summarize the evidence on detecting adventitious lung sounds by digital auscultation with automated analysis compared to reference physician acoustic analysis for child pneumonia diagnosis.
METHODS
In this review, articles were searched from MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, Global Health, IEEExplore database, Scopus, and the ClinicalTrial.gov databases from the inception of each database to October 27, 2021, and reference lists of selected studies and relevant review articles were searched manually. Studies reporting diagnostic performance of digital auscultation and/or computerized lung sound analysis compared against physicians' acoustic analysis for pneumonia diagnosis in children under the age of 5 were eligible for this systematic review. Retrieved citations were screened and eligible studies were included for extraction. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. All these steps were independently performed by two authors and disagreements between the reviewers were resolved through discussion with an arbiter. Narrative data synthesis was performed.
RESULTS
A total of 3801 citations were screened and 46 full-text articles were assessed. 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. Half of the studies used a publicly available respiratory sound database to evaluate their proposed work. Reported methodologies/approaches and performance metrics for classifying adventitious lung sounds varied widely across the included studies. All included studies except one reported overall diagnostic performance of the digital auscultation/computerised sound analysis to distinguish adventitious lung sounds, irrespective of the disease condition or age of the participants. The reported accuracies for classifying adventitious lung sounds in the included studies varied from 66.3% to 100%. However, it remained unclear to what extent these results would be applicable for classifying adventitious lung sounds in children with pneumonia.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review found very limited evidence on the diagnostic performance of digital auscultation to diagnose pneumonia in children. Well-designed studies and robust reporting are required to evaluate the accuracy of digital auscultation in the paediatric population.
Topics: Auscultation; Child; Humans; Lung; Pneumonia; Respiratory Sounds
PubMed: 35493777
DOI: 10.7189/jogh.12.04033 -
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma,... Nov 2021Auscultating for breath sounds to assess for pneumothorax in the helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) settings can be extremely challenging. Thoracic point of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Auscultating for breath sounds to assess for pneumothorax in the helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) settings can be extremely challenging. Thoracic point of care ultrasound (POCUS) offers a seemingly more useful visual (rather than audible) alternative. This review critically and quantitatively evaluates the use of thoracic POCUS for pneumothorax in the HEMS setting.
METHODS
A systematic literature review with meta-analysis was conducted. Only papers reporting on patients undergoing POCUS for pneumothorax in the helicopter or pre-hospital setting were included. Primary outcome was accuracy, focusing on sensitivity and specificity. Secondary outcome was practicality. PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) was used to assess validity of studies.
RESULTS
Twelve studies reporting on n = 1,936 images from medical and trauma patients were included in qualitative synthesis. Studies were nearly all observational designs. Most images were acquired by nurses or paramedics who were previously novices to ultrasound. The reference standard was predominantly CT. Specificity results were unanimously precise and very high, whereas sensitivity results were imprecise and extremely variable. Meta-analysis of eight studies involving n = 1,713 images yielded pooled sensitivity 61% (95% CI: 27-87%; I = 94%) and pooled specificity 99% (95% CI: 98-100%; I = 89%). Six studies involving n = 315 images reported practicality. The highest or second highest categorisation of image quality was reported in around half of those images.
CONCLUSION
Thoracic POCUS is highly specific but has extremely variable sensitivity for pneumothorax when performed in the HEMS setting. This is from purely a diagnostic (not clinical) perspective. Sensitivity increases when only clinically significant pneumothoraces are considered. Case reports reveal thoracic POCUS can appropriately alter treatment and triage decisions, but only for a small number of patients. It appears predominantly useful in mitigating against unnecessary interventions. More research reporting patient focused outcomes is required. In the meantime, thoracic POCUS appears to offer a more appropriate visual alternative to auscultation for breath sounds when assessing for pneumothorax in the HEMS setting.
Topics: Aircraft; Emergency Medical Services; Humans; Pneumothorax; Point-of-Care Systems; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 34801070
DOI: 10.1186/s13049-021-00977-0 -
Reumatologia Clinica Dec 2022Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is frequent in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The aim of this review...
AIMS
Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is frequent in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The aim of this review was to identify the different screening methods for ILD in patients with RA.
METHODS
We ran a systematic search in Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Library up to April 2020 and did a hand search of the references of the retrieved articles. The search was limited to humans and articles published in English, Spanish or French. We selected studies with any design where: (a) the population included adult patients with RA; (b) the intervention was any screening method for ILD; and (c) validity or reliability of the screening method were evaluated, or a screening method was described. Two reviewers independently screened the articles by title and abstract and subsequently extracted the information using a specific data extraction form.
RESULTS
25 studies were included with a total of 2593 patients. The most frequently used tool for ILD screening was high resolution computed tomography (HRCT) of the lung. Electronic auscultation, biochemical markers, bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and lung ultrasonography were also evaluated. Across the different studies, electronic auscultation and lung ultrasonography achieved higher accuracy than PFTs, BAL and biochemical markers.
CONCLUSIONS
HRCT resulted as the most sensitive tool for ILD screening in patients with RA. Given its harmlessness and high sensitivity, lung ultrasonography may become the first-choice tool in the future.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Reproducibility of Results; Lung Diseases, Interstitial; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Lung; Biomarkers
PubMed: 34776393
DOI: 10.1016/j.reumae.2021.07.002 -
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association... Apr 2021Cesarean delivery is the most common surgical procedure worldwide. Intrapartum fetal surveillance is routinely offered to improve neonatal outcomes, but the effects of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Cesarean delivery is the most common surgical procedure worldwide. Intrapartum fetal surveillance is routinely offered to improve neonatal outcomes, but the effects of different methods on the risk of emergency cesarean deliveries remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of different types of fetal surveillance.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL until June 1, 2020, for randomized trials evaluating any intrapartum fetal surveillance method. We performed a network meta-analysis within a frequentist framework. We assessed the quality and network inconsistency of trials. We reported primarily on intrapartum emergency cesarean deliveries and other secondary maternal and neonatal outcomes using risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
We included 33 trials (118 863 patients) evaluating intermittent auscultation with Pinard stethoscope/handheld Doppler (IA), cardiotocography (CTG), computerized cardiotocography (cCTG), CTG with fetal scalp lactate (CTG-lactate), CTG with fetal scalp pH analysis (CTG-FBS), CTG with fetal pulse oximetry (FPO-CTG), CTG with fetal heart electrocardiogram (CTG-STAN) and their combinations. Intermittent auscultation reduced the risk of emergency cesarean deliveries compared with other types of surveillance (IA v. CTG: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72-0.97; IA v. CTG-FBS: RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.63-0.80; IA v.CTG-lactate: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64-0.92; IA v. FPO-CTG: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65-0.87; IA v.FPO-CTG-FBS: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.99; cCTG-FBS v. IA: RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.04-1.42), except STAN-CTG-FBS (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.98-1.40). There was a similar reduction observed for emergency cesarean deliveries for fetal distress. None of the evaluated methods was associated with a reduced risk of neonatal acidemia, neonatal unit admissions, Apgar scores or perinatal death.
INTERPRETATION
Compared with other types of fetal surveillance, intermittent auscultation seems to reduce emergency cesarean deliveries in labour without increasing adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes.
Topics: Cesarean Section; Female; Fetal Monitoring; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33824144
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.202538 -
Journal of Physiotherapy Jan 2021In mechanically ventilated adults in intensive care, what is the accuracy of lung ultrasound (LUS) for the diagnosis of pleural effusion, lung consolidation and lung... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Lung ultrasound has greater accuracy than conventional respiratory assessment tools for the diagnosis of pleural effusion, lung consolidation and collapse: a systematic review.
QUESTION
In mechanically ventilated adults in intensive care, what is the accuracy of lung ultrasound (LUS) for the diagnosis of pleural effusion, lung consolidation and lung collapse when compared with chest radiograph (CXR) and lung auscultation, with computed tomography (CT) as the reference standard?
DESIGN
Systematic review with meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.
PARTICIPANTS
Adult patients admitted to intensive care, with diagnostic uncertainty at enrolment regarding pleural effusion, lung consolidation and/or collapse/atelectasis.
INDEX TEST
The diagnostic accuracy of LUS as the index test was estimated against CXR and/or lung auscultation as comparators, with thoracic CT scan as the reference standard.
OUTCOME MEASURES
Measures of diagnostic accuracy.
RESULTS
Seven eligible studies were identified, five of which (with 253 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. It was found that LUS had a pooled sensitivity of 92% and 91% in the diagnosis of consolidation and pleural effusion, respectively, and pooled specificity of 92% for both pathologies. CXR had a pooled sensitivity of 53% and 42% and a pooled specificity of 78% and 81% in the diagnosis of consolidation and pleural effusion, respectively. A meta-analysis for lung auscultation was not possible, although a single study reported a sensitivity and specificity of 8% and 100%, respectively, for diagnosing consolidation, and a sensitivity and specificity of 42% and 90%, respectively, for diagnosing pleural effusion.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review with meta-analysis demonstrated high sensitivity of LUS compared with CXR, with similar specificities when diagnosing pleural effusion and lung consolidation/collapse.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42018095555.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Lung; Lung Diseases; Pleural Effusion; Prospective Studies; Sensitivity and Specificity; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 33353830
DOI: 10.1016/j.jphys.2020.12.002 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Some people with SARS-CoV-2 infection remain asymptomatic, whilst in others the infection can cause mild to moderate COVID-19 disease and COVID-19 pneumonia, leading...
BACKGROUND
Some people with SARS-CoV-2 infection remain asymptomatic, whilst in others the infection can cause mild to moderate COVID-19 disease and COVID-19 pneumonia, leading some patients to require intensive care support and, in some cases, to death, especially in older adults. Symptoms such as fever or cough, and signs such as oxygen saturation or lung auscultation findings, are the first and most readily available diagnostic information. Such information could be used to either rule out COVID-19 disease, or select patients for further diagnostic testing.
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 disease or COVID-19 pneumonia.
SEARCH METHODS
On 27 April 2020, we undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the University of Bern living search database, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies were eligible if they included patients with suspected COVID-19 disease, or if they recruited known cases with COVID-19 disease and controls without COVID-19. Studies were eligible when they recruited patients presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies including patients 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 including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), clinical expertise, imaging, serology tests and World Health Organization (WHO) or other definitions of COVID-19.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract stage and full-text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 checklist. Analyses were descriptive, presenting sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in ROC (receiver operating characteristic) space and in dumbbell plots. We did not attempt meta-analysis due to the small number of studies, heterogeneity across studies and the high risk of bias.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 16 studies including 7706 participants in total. Prevalence of COVID-19 disease varied from 5% to 38% with a median of 17%. There were no studies from primary care settings, although we did find seven studies in outpatient clinics (2172 participants), and four studies in the emergency department (1401 participants). We found data on 27 signs and symptoms, which fall into four different categories: systemic, respiratory, gastrointestinal and cardiovascular. No studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms and results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity; only six symptoms had a sensitivity of at least 50% in at least one study: cough, sore throat, fever, myalgia or arthralgia, fatigue, and headache. Of these, fever, myalgia or arthralgia, fatigue, and headache could be considered red flags (defined as having a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5) for COVID-19 as their specificity was above 90%, meaning that they substantially increase the likelihood of COVID-19 disease when present. Seven studies carried a high risk of bias for selection of participants because inclusion in the studies depended on the applicable testing and referral protocols, which included many of the signs and symptoms under study in this review. Five studies only included participants with pneumonia on imaging, suggesting that this is a highly selected population. In an additional four studies, we were unable to assess the risk for selection bias. These factors make it very difficult to determine the diagnostic properties of these signs and symptoms from the included studies. We also had concerns about the applicability of these results, since most studies included participants who were already admitted to hospital or presenting to hospital settings. This makes these findings less applicable to people presenting to primary care, who may have less severe illness and a lower prevalence of COVID-19 disease. None of the studies included any data on children, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We hope that future updates of this review will be able to provide more information about the diagnostic properties of signs and symptoms in different settings and age groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The individual signs and symptoms included in this review appear to have very poor diagnostic properties, although this should be interpreted in the context of selection bias and heterogeneity between studies. Based on currently available data, neither absence nor presence of signs or symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out disease. Prospective studies in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings, examining combinations of signs and symptoms to evaluate the syndromic presentation of COVID-19 disease, are urgently needed. Results from such studies could inform subsequent management decisions such as self-isolation or selecting patients for further diagnostic testing. We also need data on potentially more specific symptoms such as loss of sense of smell. Studies in older adults are especially important.
Topics: Ambulatory Care; Arthralgia; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Coronavirus Infections; Fatigue; Fever; Headache; Humans; Myalgia; Outpatient Clinics, Hospital; Pandemics; Physical Examination; Pneumonia, Viral; Primary Health Care; SARS-CoV-2; Selection Bias; Symptom Assessment
PubMed: 32633856
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013665