PMC:7386785 / 106388-109385 JSON TXT

Annnotations TAB JSON ListView MergeView

LitCovid-PD-FMA-UBERON

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-FMA-UBERON","denotations":[{"id":"T6","span":{"begin":626,"end":632},"obj":"Body_part"},{"id":"T7","span":{"begin":1062,"end":1068},"obj":"Body_part"},{"id":"T8","span":{"begin":1101,"end":1105},"obj":"Body_part"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A6","pred":"fma_id","subj":"T6","obj":"http://purl.org/sig/ont/fma/fma228738"},{"id":"A7","pred":"fma_id","subj":"T7","obj":"http://purl.org/sig/ont/fma/fma228738"},{"id":"A8","pred":"fma_id","subj":"T8","obj":"http://purl.org/sig/ont/fma/fma46472"}],"text":"Study characteristics\nPatient Sampling Purpose: analyse the clinical features and imaging manifestations of COVID‐19Design: cross‐sectional, single‐centre, retrospective studyRecruitment: clinically suspected cases who were sent to hospital for screeningSample size: n = 86 (n = 11)Inclusion criteria: clinically suspected patientsExclusion criteria: not specified\nPatient characteristics and setting Facility cases: positive RT‐PCR via nasopharyngeal swabFacility controls: negative RT‐PCR via nasopharyngeal swab (1x)Country: ChinaDates: 23 January 2020‐16 February 2020Symptoms and severity: fever, cough, dyspnoea, sore throat, fatigue, systemic soreness, runny noseDemographics: M/F: total 39/47, cases: 5/6, controls 34/40Case group: mean age 40.73 ± 11.32 years, 5 men. Control group: mean age 39.67 ± 13.90 years, 34 menExposure history: 7/11 COVID‐19 patients (63.6%) had a history of travel to Hubei (5 Wuhan, 1 Huanggang, 1 Xiaogan), 2 patients had close contact with the COVID‐19 patients, and 2 taxi drivers\nIndex tests Fever\nCough\nDyspnoea\nSore throat\nFatigue\nSystemic soreness\nRunny nose\nTarget condition and reference standard(s) TC: SARS‐Cov‐2 infection\nRS: RT‐PCR (nasopharyngeal swab)\nFlow and timing Time interval not specified\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? Unclear \nWas a case‐control design avoided? Yes \nDid the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? Unclear \nDid the study avoid inappropriate inclusions? Unclear \nCould the selection of patients have introduced bias? Unclear risk \nAre there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question? Unclear\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? Unclear \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-UBERON

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-UBERON","denotations":[{"id":"T79","span":{"begin":626,"end":632},"obj":"Body_part"},{"id":"T80","span":{"begin":1062,"end":1068},"obj":"Body_part"},{"id":"T81","span":{"begin":1101,"end":1105},"obj":"Body_part"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A79","pred":"uberon_id","subj":"T79","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/UBERON_0000341"},{"id":"A80","pred":"uberon_id","subj":"T80","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/UBERON_0000341"},{"id":"A81","pred":"uberon_id","subj":"T81","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/UBERON_0000004"}],"text":"Study characteristics\nPatient Sampling Purpose: analyse the clinical features and imaging manifestations of COVID‐19Design: cross‐sectional, single‐centre, retrospective studyRecruitment: clinically suspected cases who were sent to hospital for screeningSample size: n = 86 (n = 11)Inclusion criteria: clinically suspected patientsExclusion criteria: not specified\nPatient characteristics and setting Facility cases: positive RT‐PCR via nasopharyngeal swabFacility controls: negative RT‐PCR via nasopharyngeal swab (1x)Country: ChinaDates: 23 January 2020‐16 February 2020Symptoms and severity: fever, cough, dyspnoea, sore throat, fatigue, systemic soreness, runny noseDemographics: M/F: total 39/47, cases: 5/6, controls 34/40Case group: mean age 40.73 ± 11.32 years, 5 men. Control group: mean age 39.67 ± 13.90 years, 34 menExposure history: 7/11 COVID‐19 patients (63.6%) had a history of travel to Hubei (5 Wuhan, 1 Huanggang, 1 Xiaogan), 2 patients had close contact with the COVID‐19 patients, and 2 taxi drivers\nIndex tests Fever\nCough\nDyspnoea\nSore throat\nFatigue\nSystemic soreness\nRunny nose\nTarget condition and reference standard(s) TC: SARS‐Cov‐2 infection\nRS: RT‐PCR (nasopharyngeal swab)\nFlow and timing Time interval not specified\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? Unclear \nWas a case‐control design avoided? Yes \nDid the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? Unclear \nDid the study avoid inappropriate inclusions? Unclear \nCould the selection of patients have introduced bias? Unclear risk \nAre there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question? Unclear\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? Unclear \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-MONDO

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-MONDO","denotations":[{"id":"T453","span":{"begin":621,"end":632},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"T454","span":{"begin":853,"end":861},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"T455","span":{"begin":985,"end":993},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"T456","span":{"begin":1057,"end":1068},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"T457","span":{"begin":1095,"end":1105},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"T458","span":{"begin":1154,"end":1158},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"T459","span":{"begin":1165,"end":1174},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"T460","span":{"begin":1175,"end":1177},"obj":"Disease"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A453","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T453","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0002258"},{"id":"A454","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T454","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0100096"},{"id":"A455","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T455","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0100096"},{"id":"A456","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T456","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0002258"},{"id":"A457","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T457","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0003014"},{"id":"A458","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T458","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0005091"},{"id":"A459","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T459","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0005550"},{"id":"A460","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T460","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0010725"}],"text":"Study characteristics\nPatient Sampling Purpose: analyse the clinical features and imaging manifestations of COVID‐19Design: cross‐sectional, single‐centre, retrospective studyRecruitment: clinically suspected cases who were sent to hospital for screeningSample size: n = 86 (n = 11)Inclusion criteria: clinically suspected patientsExclusion criteria: not specified\nPatient characteristics and setting Facility cases: positive RT‐PCR via nasopharyngeal swabFacility controls: negative RT‐PCR via nasopharyngeal swab (1x)Country: ChinaDates: 23 January 2020‐16 February 2020Symptoms and severity: fever, cough, dyspnoea, sore throat, fatigue, systemic soreness, runny noseDemographics: M/F: total 39/47, cases: 5/6, controls 34/40Case group: mean age 40.73 ± 11.32 years, 5 men. Control group: mean age 39.67 ± 13.90 years, 34 menExposure history: 7/11 COVID‐19 patients (63.6%) had a history of travel to Hubei (5 Wuhan, 1 Huanggang, 1 Xiaogan), 2 patients had close contact with the COVID‐19 patients, and 2 taxi drivers\nIndex tests Fever\nCough\nDyspnoea\nSore throat\nFatigue\nSystemic soreness\nRunny nose\nTarget condition and reference standard(s) TC: SARS‐Cov‐2 infection\nRS: RT‐PCR (nasopharyngeal swab)\nFlow and timing Time interval not specified\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? Unclear \nWas a case‐control design avoided? Yes \nDid the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? Unclear \nDid the study avoid inappropriate inclusions? Unclear \nCould the selection of patients have introduced bias? Unclear risk \nAre there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question? Unclear\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? Unclear \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":"T57995","span":{"begin":735,"end":740},"obj":"Chemical"},{"id":"T28456","span":{"begin":787,"end":792},"obj":"Chemical"},{"id":"T44782","span":{"begin":1175,"end":1177},"obj":"Chemical"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A40416","pred":"chebi_id","subj":"T57995","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_24433"},{"id":"A83933","pred":"chebi_id","subj":"T28456","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_24433"},{"id":"A56627","pred":"chebi_id","subj":"T44782","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_73819"}],"text":"Study characteristics\nPatient Sampling Purpose: analyse the clinical features and imaging manifestations of COVID‐19Design: cross‐sectional, single‐centre, retrospective studyRecruitment: clinically suspected cases who were sent to hospital for screeningSample size: n = 86 (n = 11)Inclusion criteria: clinically suspected patientsExclusion criteria: not specified\nPatient characteristics and setting Facility cases: positive RT‐PCR via nasopharyngeal swabFacility controls: negative RT‐PCR via nasopharyngeal swab (1x)Country: ChinaDates: 23 January 2020‐16 February 2020Symptoms and severity: fever, cough, dyspnoea, sore throat, fatigue, systemic soreness, runny noseDemographics: M/F: total 39/47, cases: 5/6, controls 34/40Case group: mean age 40.73 ± 11.32 years, 5 men. Control group: mean age 39.67 ± 13.90 years, 34 menExposure history: 7/11 COVID‐19 patients (63.6%) had a history of travel to Hubei (5 Wuhan, 1 Huanggang, 1 Xiaogan), 2 patients had close contact with the COVID‐19 patients, and 2 taxi drivers\nIndex tests Fever\nCough\nDyspnoea\nSore throat\nFatigue\nSystemic soreness\nRunny nose\nTarget condition and reference standard(s) TC: SARS‐Cov‐2 infection\nRS: RT‐PCR (nasopharyngeal swab)\nFlow and timing Time interval not specified\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? Unclear \nWas a case‐control design avoided? Yes \nDid the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? Unclear \nDid the study avoid inappropriate inclusions? Unclear \nCould the selection of patients have introduced bias? Unclear risk \nAre there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question? Unclear\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? Unclear \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

LitCovid-sentences

LitCovid-PubTator

PMC:7386785 / 106388-109385 JSONTXT

Annnotations TAB JSON ListView MergeView

PMC:7386785 / 106388-109385 JSON TXT