PMC:7212965 / 17394-18404 JSONTXT

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-FMA-UBERON","denotations":[{"id":"T30","span":{"begin":59,"end":63},"obj":"Body_part"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A30","pred":"fma_id","subj":"T30","obj":"http://purl.org/sig/ont/fma/fma256135"}],"text":"Overall Certainty of Evidence\nThe overall certainty in the body of evidence was low. Our confidence in the pooled estimates of prevalence was reduced because of concerns of risk of bias (ie, selection bias, detection bias, and attrition bias), heterogeneity of the tested patient populations (inconsistency), as well as issues of indirectness (the majority of studies included primarily symptomatic hospitalized patients instead of all patients with COVID-19). Additionally, most of the studies were retrospective cohort series and did not specify whether consecutive patients were included in the analysis. Other limitations included inconsistent assessment of symptoms and/or laboratory tests, missing data and/or inconsistent reporting of data, and insufficient follow-up of the patients. These factors may have contributed to the heterogeneity of findings across studies. The I 2 statistic ranged from 77% to 98% and was not completely explained by geographic location or by outpatient vs inpatient status."}

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-MONDO","denotations":[{"id":"T66","span":{"begin":450,"end":458},"obj":"Disease"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A66","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T66","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0100096"}],"text":"Overall Certainty of Evidence\nThe overall certainty in the body of evidence was low. Our confidence in the pooled estimates of prevalence was reduced because of concerns of risk of bias (ie, selection bias, detection bias, and attrition bias), heterogeneity of the tested patient populations (inconsistency), as well as issues of indirectness (the majority of studies included primarily symptomatic hospitalized patients instead of all patients with COVID-19). Additionally, most of the studies were retrospective cohort series and did not specify whether consecutive patients were included in the analysis. Other limitations included inconsistent assessment of symptoms and/or laboratory tests, missing data and/or inconsistent reporting of data, and insufficient follow-up of the patients. These factors may have contributed to the heterogeneity of findings across studies. The I 2 statistic ranged from 77% to 98% and was not completely explained by geographic location or by outpatient vs inpatient status."}

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-CLO","denotations":[{"id":"T121","span":{"begin":265,"end":271},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/UBERON_0000473"},{"id":"T122","span":{"begin":689,"end":694},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/UBERON_0000473"}],"text":"Overall Certainty of Evidence\nThe overall certainty in the body of evidence was low. Our confidence in the pooled estimates of prevalence was reduced because of concerns of risk of bias (ie, selection bias, detection bias, and attrition bias), heterogeneity of the tested patient populations (inconsistency), as well as issues of indirectness (the majority of studies included primarily symptomatic hospitalized patients instead of all patients with COVID-19). Additionally, most of the studies were retrospective cohort series and did not specify whether consecutive patients were included in the analysis. Other limitations included inconsistent assessment of symptoms and/or laboratory tests, missing data and/or inconsistent reporting of data, and insufficient follow-up of the patients. These factors may have contributed to the heterogeneity of findings across studies. The I 2 statistic ranged from 77% to 98% and was not completely explained by geographic location or by outpatient vs inpatient status."}

{"project":"LitCovid-sentences","denotations":[{"id":"T128","span":{"begin":0,"end":29},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T129","span":{"begin":30,"end":84},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T130","span":{"begin":85,"end":460},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T131","span":{"begin":461,"end":607},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T132","span":{"begin":608,"end":791},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T133","span":{"begin":792,"end":875},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T134","span":{"begin":876,"end":1010},"obj":"Sentence"}],"namespaces":[{"prefix":"_base","uri":"http://pubannotation.org/ontology/tao.owl#"}],"text":"Overall Certainty of Evidence\nThe overall certainty in the body of evidence was low. Our confidence in the pooled estimates of prevalence was reduced because of concerns of risk of bias (ie, selection bias, detection bias, and attrition bias), heterogeneity of the tested patient populations (inconsistency), as well as issues of indirectness (the majority of studies included primarily symptomatic hospitalized patients instead of all patients with COVID-19). Additionally, most of the studies were retrospective cohort series and did not specify whether consecutive patients were included in the analysis. Other limitations included inconsistent assessment of symptoms and/or laboratory tests, missing data and/or inconsistent reporting of data, and insufficient follow-up of the patients. These factors may have contributed to the heterogeneity of findings across studies. The I 2 statistic ranged from 77% to 98% and was not completely explained by geographic location or by outpatient vs inpatient status."}

{"project":"LitCovid-PubTator","denotations":[{"id":"369","span":{"begin":272,"end":279},"obj":"Species"},{"id":"370","span":{"begin":412,"end":420},"obj":"Species"},{"id":"371","span":{"begin":436,"end":444},"obj":"Species"},{"id":"372","span":{"begin":568,"end":576},"obj":"Species"},{"id":"373","span":{"begin":782,"end":790},"obj":"Species"},{"id":"374","span":{"begin":979,"end":989},"obj":"Species"},{"id":"375","span":{"begin":450,"end":458},"obj":"Disease"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A369","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"369","obj":"Tax:9606"},{"id":"A370","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"370","obj":"Tax:9606"},{"id":"A371","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"371","obj":"Tax:9606"},{"id":"A372","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"372","obj":"Tax:9606"},{"id":"A373","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"373","obj":"Tax:9606"},{"id":"A374","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"374","obj":"Tax:9606"},{"id":"A375","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"375","obj":"MESH:C000657245"}],"namespaces":[{"prefix":"Tax","uri":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/taxonomy/"},{"prefix":"MESH","uri":"https://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/"},{"prefix":"Gene","uri":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/"},{"prefix":"CVCL","uri":"https://web.expasy.org/cellosaurus/CVCL_"}],"text":"Overall Certainty of Evidence\nThe overall certainty in the body of evidence was low. Our confidence in the pooled estimates of prevalence was reduced because of concerns of risk of bias (ie, selection bias, detection bias, and attrition bias), heterogeneity of the tested patient populations (inconsistency), as well as issues of indirectness (the majority of studies included primarily symptomatic hospitalized patients instead of all patients with COVID-19). Additionally, most of the studies were retrospective cohort series and did not specify whether consecutive patients were included in the analysis. Other limitations included inconsistent assessment of symptoms and/or laboratory tests, missing data and/or inconsistent reporting of data, and insufficient follow-up of the patients. These factors may have contributed to the heterogeneity of findings across studies. The I 2 statistic ranged from 77% to 98% and was not completely explained by geographic location or by outpatient vs inpatient status."}