Dataset Information

Comparison between Suspected and Confirmed COVID-19 Respiratory Patients: What Is beyond the PCR Test.

ABSTRACT: COVID-19 modified the healthcare system. Nasal-pharyngeal swab (NPS), with real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase (PCR), is the gold standard for the diagnosis; however, there are difficulties related to the procedure that may postpone it. The study aims to evaluate whether other elements than the PCR-NPS are reliable and confirm the diagnosis of COVID-19. This is a cross-sectional study on data from the Lung Unit of Pavia (confirmed) and at the Emergency Unit of Palermo (suspected). COVID-19 was confirmed by positive NPS, suspected tested negative. We compared clinical, laboratory and radiological variables and performed Logistic regression to estimate which variables increased the risk of COVID-19. The derived ROC-AUCcurve, assessed the accuracy of the model to distinguish between COVID-19 suspected and confirmed. We selected 50 confirmed and 103 suspected cases. High Reactive C-Protein (OR: 1.02; CI95%: 0.11-1.02), suggestive CT-images (OR: 11.43; CI95%: 3.01-43.3), dyspnea (OR: 10.48; CI95%: 2.08-52.7) and respiratory failure (OR: 5.84; CI95%: 1.73-19.75) increased the risk of COVID-19, whereas pleural effusion decreased the risk (OR: 0.15; CI95%: 0.04-0.63). ROC confirmed the discriminative role of these variables between suspected and confirmed COVID-19 (AUC 0.91). Clinical, laboratory and imaging features predict the diagnosis of COVID-19, independently from the NPS result.

SUBMITTER: Principe S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9181151 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison between Suspected and Confirmed COVID-19 Respiratory Patients: What Is beyond the PCR Test.

Principe Stefania S Grosso Amelia A Benfante Alida A Albicini Federica F Battaglia Salvatore S Gini Erica E Amata Marta M Piccionello Ilaria I Corsico Angelo Guido AG Scichilone Nicola N

Journal of clinical medicine 20220525 11

COVID-19 modified the healthcare system. Nasal-pharyngeal swab (NPS), with real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase (PCR), is the gold standard for the diagnosis; however, there are difficulties related to the procedure that may postpone it. The study aims to evaluate whether other elements than the PCR-NPS are reliable and confirm the diagnosis of COVID-19. This is a cross-sectional study on data from the Lung Unit of Pavia (confirmed) and at the Emergency Unit of Palermo (suspected). COVID-1 ...[more]

PMID: 35683382

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn a previous pilot randomised controlled trial conducted on UK adults, we found that hypertonic saline nasal irrigation and gargling (HSNIG) reduced common cold symptoms, the need for over-the-counter medications, viral shedding, and the duration and transmission of the illness. It is unclear whether HSNIG improves outcomes of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Hypertonic saline can be prepared and HSNIG performed at home, making it a safe and scalable intervention, particularly well-suited for low- and middle-income countries.MethodsWe conducted a pragmatic randomised controlled trial in Pakistan on adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, initially within 48 hours of symptom onset, later extended to within five days due to recruitment challenges. Participants were randomised to one of two groups: the intervention group received instructions on preparing a 2.6% hypertonic saline solution for HSNIG, while the control group was instructed on performing ablution for Muslim prayers (wudu), which involves nasal washing and gargling with tap water. Our primary outcome was the time to symptom resolution, measured by two consecutive days of scoring zero on relevant questions from the validated, self-reported, adapted short form of the Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey (WURSS-24). Secondary outcomes included the severity of all symptoms, the severity and time to resolution of individual symptoms, health care contacts (GP/physician, emergency contacts), hospital attendance (and length of stay if admitted), over-the-counter (OTC) medication (frequency and cost), and transmission to household contacts. The analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Logistic regression was used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of improvement and Cox regression to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for the time to improvement with accompanying 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsWe randomised 576 people: 279 to the HSNIG group and 297 to the control group. Among those, 10 out of 279 (3.6%) in the HSNIG had symptom resolution, compared with 11 out of 297 (3.7%) in the control group (aOR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.46- 3.22). The time-to-event analysis also showed no significant benefit (aHR = 1.23, 95% CI = 0.51-2.97). Excluding the 127 participants with no data on the primary outcome (who did not complete the study), 10 out of 222 (4.5%) in the HSNIG group had symptom resolution, compared to 11 out of 227 (4.8%) in the control group.ConclusionsHSNIG was not effective for individuals with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who began the intervention within five days of symptoms onset and therefore cannot be recommended for use. Further investigation is needed for interventions started within 48 hours of illness onset.RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05104372).

Project description:Aims and objectivesThis study aimed to compare anxiety, resilience, and depression between COVID-19 unit (confirmed patients and suspected patients) and non-COVID-19 unit nurses and assess their effects on depression.BackgroundNurses working during the global pandemic are known to be physically and psychologically exhausted, and experience severe anxiety and depression. However, there is a lack of studies comparing anxiety and depression between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 unit nurses.DesignDescriptive research study.MethodsThis study was conducted on 64 nurses who directly worked for more than a month in a COVID-19 unit of a general hospital with nationally designated negative-pressure isolation beds and 64 nurses working in a non-COVID-19 unit. Data were collected through questionnaires and were analysed using SPSS 25.0. Reporting of this research adheres to the STROBE guidelines.ResultsAnxiety and depression were significantly higher in nurses working with patients suspected to have COVID-19 rather than nurses working with confirmed COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 patients. Resilience was significantly lower in suspected patient unit nurses than in COVID-19 unit nurses. Anxiety was the major factor predicting depression in both COVID-19 unit (confirmed patients and suspected patients) and non-COVID-19 unit nurses with 76.6%, 80.7%, and 63.6% explanatory power, respectively.ConclusionsAmong nurses working in COVID-19 units, suspected patients unit nurses had higher depression than confirmed patients unit nurses due to an unsafe facility environment, insufficient personal protective equipment, and unknown conditions of the patients. Thus, interventions which have a high impact on depression need to be provided to relieve anxiety.Relevance to clinical practiceThe nursing organisation must provide comprehensive support including coordinated shifts, internal motivation, incentives, up-to-date information, and clear infection prevention guidelines to relieve anxiety caused by exhaustive workload, uncertainty of infectious diseases, and lack of human and material resources.

Dataset Information

Comparison between Suspected and Confirmed COVID-19 Respiratory Patients: What Is beyond the PCR Test.

Publications

Comparison between Suspected and Confirmed COVID-19 Respiratory Patients: What Is beyond the PCR Test.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets