Dataset Information

Misdiagnoses in the Context of Suspected Pandemic Influenza or Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: There have been numerous reports of patients initially misdiagnosed in the 2009 H1N1 influenza and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemics within the literature. A systematic review was undertaken to collate misdiagnoses during the H1N1 and COVID-19 pandemics and identify which cognitive biases may contribute to this. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane and MedRxiv databases were searched for misdiagnoses or cognitive biases resulting in misdiagnosis, occurring during the H1N1 or COVID-19 virus pandemics. Eligible studies were assessed for quality using JBI criteria; primary outcome was the final diagnosis. Sixty-nine studies involving 2551 participants were included. We identified 686 cases of misdiagnosis, categorized as viral respiratory infection, other respiratory infection, non-respiratory infection, and non-infective. Misdiagnoses are listed and relevant investigations are offered. No article described prospective assessment of decision making in the pandemic setting or debiasing diagnostic thinking. Further research is required to understand why misdiagnoses occur and harm arises and how clinicians can be assisted in their decision making in a pandemic context.

SUBMITTER: Bray L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9619634 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Misdiagnoses in the Context of Suspected Pandemic Influenza or Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review.

Bray Lucy L Meznikova Katerina K James Daniel D Rislan Razan R Shah Rahul R Mason Pavan P Staniland Tim T Lillie Patrick P Barlow Gavin G Easom Nicholas N

Open forum infectious diseases 20221005 11

There have been numerous reports of patients initially misdiagnosed in the 2009 H1N1 influenza and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemics within the literature. A systematic review was undertaken to collate misdiagnoses during the H1N1 and COVID-19 pandemics and identify which cognitive biases may contribute to this. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane and MedRxiv databases were searched for misdiagnoses or cognitive biases resulting in misdiagnosis, occurring during the H1N1 or COVID-19 virus pand ...[more]

PMID: 36340740

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceDuring the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, there may be too few ventilators to meet medical demands. It is unknown how many US states have ventilator allocation guidelines and how these state guidelines compare with one another.ObjectiveTo evaluate the number of publicly available US state guidelines for ventilator allocation and the variation in state recommendations for how ventilator allocation decisions should occur and to assess whether unique criteria exist for pediatric patients.Evidence reviewThis systematic review evaluated publicly available guidelines about ventilator allocation for all states in the US and in the District of Columbia using department of health websites for each state and internet searches. Documents with any discussion of a process to triage mechanical ventilatory support during a public health emergency were screened for inclusion. Articles were excluded if they did not include specific ventilator allocation recommendations, were in draft status, did not include their state department of health, or were not the most up-to-date guideline. All documents were individually assessed and reassessed by 2 independent reviewers from March 30 to April 2 and May 8 to 10, 2020.FindingsAs of May 10, 2020, 26 states had publicly available ventilator guidelines, and 14 states had pediatric guidelines. Use of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score in the initial rank of adult patients was recommended in 15 state guidelines (58%), and assessment of limited life expectancy from underlying conditions or comorbidities was included in 6 state guidelines (23%). Priority was recommended for specific groups in the initial evaluation of patients in 6 states (23%) (ie, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Utah). Many states recommended exclusion criteria in adult (11 of 26 states [42%]) and pediatric (10 of 14 states [71%]) ventilator allocation. Withdrawal of mechanical ventilation from a patient to give to another if a shortage occurs was discussed in 22 of 26 adult guidelines (85%) and 9 of 14 pediatric guidelines (64%).Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that although allocation guidelines for mechanical ventilatory support are essential in a public health emergency, only 26 US states provided public guidance on how this allocation should occur. Guidelines among states, including adjacent states, varied significantly and could cause inequity in the allocation of mechanical ventilatory support during a public health emergency, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been implicated in a wide spectrum of cardiac manifestations following the acute phase of the disease.ObjectivesTo assess the range of cardiac sequelae after COVID-19 recovery.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Scopus (inception through 17 February 2021) and Google scholar (2019 through 17 February 2021).Study eligibility criteriaProspective and retrospective studies, case reports and case series.ParticipantsAdult patients assessed for cardiac manifestations after COVID-19 recovery.ExposureSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection diagnosed by PCR.MethodsSystematic review.ResultsThirty-five studies (fifteen prospective cohort, seven case reports, five cross-sectional, four case series, three retrospective cohort and one ambidirectional cohort) evaluating cardiac sequelae in 52 609 patients were included. Twenty-nine studies used objective cardiac assessments, mostly cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) in 16 studies, echocardiography in 15, electrocardiography (ECG) in 16 and cardiac biomarkers in 18. Most studies had a fair risk of bias. The median time from diagnosis/recovery to cardiac assessment was 48 days (1-180 days). Common short-term cardiac abnormalities (<3 months) included increased T1 (proportion: 30%), T2 (16%), pericardial effusion (15%) and late gadolinium enhancement (11%) on CMR, with symptoms such as chest pain (25%) and dyspnoea (36%). In the medium term (3-6 months), common changes included reduced left ventricular global longitudinal strain (30%) and late gadolinium enhancement (10%) on CMR, diastolic dysfunction (40%) on echocardiography and elevated N-terminal proB-type natriuretic peptide (18%). In addition, COVID-19 survivors had higher risk (risk ratio 3; 95% CI 2.7-3.2) of developing heart failure, arrythmias and myocardial infarction.ConclusionsCOVID-19 appears to be associated with persistent/de novo cardiac injury after recovery, particularly subclinical myocardial injury in the earlier phase and diastolic dysfunction later. Larger well-designed and controlled studies with baseline assessments are needed to better measure the extent of cardiac injury and its clinical impact.

Dataset Information

Misdiagnoses in the Context of Suspected Pandemic Influenza or Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review.

Publications

Misdiagnoses in the Context of Suspected Pandemic Influenza or Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets