PMC:7386785 / 103080-106376 JSON TXT

Annnotations TAB JSON ListView MergeView

LitCovid-PD-MONDO

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-MONDO","denotations":[{"id":"T443","span":{"begin":82,"end":90},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"T444","span":{"begin":255,"end":259},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"T445","span":{"begin":508,"end":512},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"T446","span":{"begin":908,"end":912},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"T447","span":{"begin":971,"end":975},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"T448","span":{"begin":1368,"end":1377},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"T449","span":{"begin":1443,"end":1447},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"T450","span":{"begin":1454,"end":1463},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"T451","span":{"begin":1464,"end":1466},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"T452","span":{"begin":1468,"end":1472},"obj":"Disease"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A443","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T443","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0100096"},{"id":"A444","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T444","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0005091"},{"id":"A445","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T445","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0005091"},{"id":"A446","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T446","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0005091"},{"id":"A447","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T447","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0005091"},{"id":"A448","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T448","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0001673"},{"id":"A449","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T449","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0005091"},{"id":"A450","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T450","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0005550"},{"id":"A451","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T451","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0010725"},{"id":"A452","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T452","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0005091"}],"text":"Nobel 2020\nStudy characteristics\nPatient Sampling Purpose: assess GI symptoms in COVID‐19 and their association with short‐term outcomesDesign: diagnostic case‐control, retrospective studyRecruitment: adults who underwent nasopharyngeal swab testing for SARS‐CoV‐2 at outpatient settings: clinics or the ED, of New York‐Presbyterian‐Columbia or the medical centre's affiliates in New YorkSample size: 516 (278 cases)Inclusion criteria: adults ≥ 18 years of age who underwent nasopharyngeal swab testing for SARS‐CoV‐2. Indications for testing during this period were respiratory symptoms (cough, fever, shortness of breath) with intent to hospitalise or the same symptoms in essential personnel.Exclusion criteria: if insufficient data were available in the electronic medical record or if testing was performed during a pre‐existing inpatient admission\nPatient characteristics and setting Facility cases: SARS‐CoV‐2 PCR test result positive (1 test)Facility controls: SARS‐CoV‐2 PCR test result negativeCountry: USADates: 10 March 2020‐21 March 2020Symptoms and severity: respiratory symptoms (cough, fever, shortness of breath) with intent to hospitalise or in essential workersDemographics: median age: 51‐70 years (cases and controls), gender distribution: cases (M/F(%): 52/48), controls (M/F(%): 45/55)Exposure history: not specified\nIndex tests GI symptoms: diarrhoea, vomiting/nausea\nTarget condition and reference standard(s) TC: SARS‐Cov‐2 infection\nRS: SARS‐CoV‐2 PCR test, once (nasopharyngeal swab)\nFlow and timing Time interval: both taken at intake\nComparative \nNotes \nMethodological quality\nItem Authors' judgement Risk of bias Applicability concerns\nDOMAIN 1: Patient Selection\nWas a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? Yes \nWas a case‐control design avoided? No \nDid the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? Yes \nDid the study avoid inappropriate inclusions? Yes \nCould the selection of patients have introduced bias? Low risk \nAre there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question? Low concern\nDOMAIN 2: Index Test (All tests)\nWere the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? Yes \nIf a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? No \nCould the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias? High risk \nAre there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question? Low concern\nDOMAIN 3: Reference Standard\nIs the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? Yes \nWere the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests? Unclear \nCould the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias? Low risk \nAre there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question? Low concern\nDOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing\nWas there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? Yes \nDid all patients receive the same reference standard? Yes \nWere all patients included in the analysis? Yes \nCould the patient flow have introduced bias? Low risk "}

LitCovid-PD-CLO

LitCovid-PD-CHEBI

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-CHEBI","denotations":[{"id":"T95237","span":{"begin":67,"end":69},"obj":"Chemical"},{"id":"T34688","span":{"begin":305,"end":307},"obj":"Chemical"},{"id":"T43166","span":{"begin":1355,"end":1357},"obj":"Chemical"},{"id":"T67561","span":{"begin":1464,"end":1466},"obj":"Chemical"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A59748","pred":"chebi_id","subj":"T95237","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_73907"},{"id":"A30729","pred":"chebi_id","subj":"T34688","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_73503"},{"id":"A90443","pred":"chebi_id","subj":"T43166","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_73907"},{"id":"A40259","pred":"chebi_id","subj":"T67561","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_73819"}],"text":"Nobel 2020\nStudy characteristics\nPatient Sampling Purpose: assess GI symptoms in COVID‐19 and their association with short‐term outcomesDesign: diagnostic case‐control, retrospective studyRecruitment: adults who underwent nasopharyngeal swab testing for SARS‐CoV‐2 at outpatient settings: clinics or the ED, of New York‐Presbyterian‐Columbia or the medical centre's affiliates in New YorkSample size: 516 (278 cases)Inclusion criteria: adults ≥ 18 years of age who underwent nasopharyngeal swab testing for SARS‐CoV‐2. Indications for testing during this period were respiratory symptoms (cough, fever, shortness of breath) with intent to hospitalise or the same symptoms in essential personnel.Exclusion criteria: if insufficient data were available in the electronic medical record or if testing was performed during a pre‐existing inpatient admission\nPatient characteristics and setting Facility cases: SARS‐CoV‐2 PCR test result positive (1 test)Facility controls: SARS‐CoV‐2 PCR test result negativeCountry: USADates: 10 March 2020‐21 March 2020Symptoms and severity: respiratory symptoms (cough, fever, shortness of breath) with intent to hospitalise or in essential workersDemographics: median age: 51‐70 years (cases and controls), gender distribution: cases (M/F(%): 52/48), controls (M/F(%): 45/55)Exposure history: not specified\nIndex tests GI symptoms: diarrhoea, vomiting/nausea\nTarget condition and reference standard(s) TC: SARS‐Cov‐2 infection\nRS: SARS‐CoV‐2 PCR test, once (nasopharyngeal swab)\nFlow and timing Time interval: both taken at intake\nComparative \nNotes \nMethodological quality\nItem Authors' judgement Risk of bias Applicability concerns\nDOMAIN 1: Patient Selection\nWas a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? Yes \nWas a case‐control design avoided? No \nDid the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? Yes \nDid the study avoid inappropriate inclusions? Yes \nCould the selection of patients have introduced bias? Low risk \nAre there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question? Low concern\nDOMAIN 2: Index Test (All tests)\nWere the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? Yes \nIf a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? No \nCould the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias? High risk \nAre there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question? Low concern\nDOMAIN 3: Reference Standard\nIs the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? Yes \nWere the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests? Unclear \nCould the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias? Low risk \nAre there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question? Low concern\nDOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing\nWas there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? Yes \nDid all patients receive the same reference standard? Yes \nWere all patients included in the analysis? Yes \nCould the patient flow have introduced bias? Low risk "}

LitCovid-PD-HP

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-HP","denotations":[{"id":"T369","span":{"begin":590,"end":595},"obj":"Phenotype"},{"id":"T370","span":{"begin":597,"end":602},"obj":"Phenotype"},{"id":"T371","span":{"begin":604,"end":623},"obj":"Phenotype"},{"id":"T372","span":{"begin":1097,"end":1102},"obj":"Phenotype"},{"id":"T373","span":{"begin":1104,"end":1109},"obj":"Phenotype"},{"id":"T374","span":{"begin":1111,"end":1130},"obj":"Phenotype"},{"id":"T375","span":{"begin":1368,"end":1377},"obj":"Phenotype"},{"id":"T376","span":{"begin":1379,"end":1387},"obj":"Phenotype"},{"id":"T377","span":{"begin":1388,"end":1394},"obj":"Phenotype"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A369","pred":"hp_id","subj":"T369","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/HP_0012735"},{"id":"A370","pred":"hp_id","subj":"T370","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/HP_0001945"},{"id":"A371","pred":"hp_id","subj":"T371","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/HP_0002098"},{"id":"A372","pred":"hp_id","subj":"T372","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/HP_0012735"},{"id":"A373","pred":"hp_id","subj":"T373","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/HP_0001945"},{"id":"A374","pred":"hp_id","subj":"T374","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/HP_0002098"},{"id":"A375","pred":"hp_id","subj":"T375","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/HP_0002014"},{"id":"A376","pred":"hp_id","subj":"T376","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/HP_0002013"},{"id":"A377","pred":"hp_id","subj":"T377","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/HP_0002018"}],"text":"Nobel 2020\nStudy characteristics\nPatient Sampling Purpose: assess GI symptoms in COVID‐19 and their association with short‐term outcomesDesign: diagnostic case‐control, retrospective studyRecruitment: adults who underwent nasopharyngeal swab testing for SARS‐CoV‐2 at outpatient settings: clinics or the ED, of New York‐Presbyterian‐Columbia or the medical centre's affiliates in New YorkSample size: 516 (278 cases)Inclusion criteria: adults ≥ 18 years of age who underwent nasopharyngeal swab testing for SARS‐CoV‐2. Indications for testing during this period were respiratory symptoms (cough, fever, shortness of breath) with intent to hospitalise or the same symptoms in essential personnel.Exclusion criteria: if insufficient data were available in the electronic medical record or if testing was performed during a pre‐existing inpatient admission\nPatient characteristics and setting Facility cases: SARS‐CoV‐2 PCR test result positive (1 test)Facility controls: SARS‐CoV‐2 PCR test result negativeCountry: USADates: 10 March 2020‐21 March 2020Symptoms and severity: respiratory symptoms (cough, fever, shortness of breath) with intent to hospitalise or in essential workersDemographics: median age: 51‐70 years (cases and controls), gender distribution: cases (M/F(%): 52/48), controls (M/F(%): 45/55)Exposure history: not specified\nIndex tests GI symptoms: diarrhoea, vomiting/nausea\nTarget condition and reference standard(s) TC: SARS‐Cov‐2 infection\nRS: SARS‐CoV‐2 PCR test, once (nasopharyngeal swab)\nFlow and timing Time interval: both taken at intake\nComparative \nNotes \nMethodological quality\nItem Authors' judgement Risk of bias Applicability concerns\nDOMAIN 1: Patient Selection\nWas a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? Yes \nWas a case‐control design avoided? No \nDid the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? Yes \nDid the study avoid inappropriate inclusions? Yes \nCould the selection of patients have introduced bias? Low risk \nAre there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question? Low concern\nDOMAIN 2: Index Test (All tests)\nWere the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? Yes \nIf a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? No \nCould the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias? High risk \nAre there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question? Low concern\nDOMAIN 3: Reference Standard\nIs the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? Yes \nWere the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests? Unclear \nCould the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias? Low risk \nAre there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question? Low concern\nDOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing\nWas there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? Yes \nDid all patients receive the same reference standard? Yes \nWere all patients included in the analysis? Yes \nCould the patient flow have introduced bias? Low risk "}

LitCovid-sentences

LitCovid-PubTator