PMC:7386785 / 121027-125000 JSON TXT

Annnotations TAB JSON ListView MergeView

LitCovid-PD-MONDO

LitCovid-PD-CLO

LitCovid-PD-CHEBI

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-CHEBI","denotations":[{"id":"T22","span":{"begin":1198,"end":1200},"obj":"Chemical"},{"id":"T40363","span":{"begin":2068,"end":2070},"obj":"Chemical"},{"id":"T61564","span":{"begin":2207,"end":2209},"obj":"Chemical"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A55012","pred":"chebi_id","subj":"T22","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_73503"},{"id":"A7878","pred":"chebi_id","subj":"T40363","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_73819"},{"id":"A34233","pred":"chebi_id","subj":"T61564","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_73819"}],"text":"Tolia 2020\nStudy characteristics\nPatient Sampling Purpose: diagnosis of acute SARS‐CoV‐2 infectionDesign: cross‐sectional, retrospective studyRecruitment: all patients presenting to 1 of 2 EDs, located at an urban teaching hospital, and academic quaternary medical centre, within the same healthcare system who had targeted testing based on clinician's decision during the initial 10 days of test availabilitySample size: n = 283 (29 cases)Inclusion criteria:patients presenting with symptoms related to COVID‐19 infection (fever and cough or shortness of breath)\ntravel within 14 days to countries with high rates of infection (at that time China, Iran, Italy, Japan, and South Korea) or\nrisk factors for infection complications (including age or comorbid conditions) or\nthe patient was a healthcare worker who could potentially expose others at risk and clinician made decision for testing\nExclusion criteria: not specified\nPatient characteristics and setting Facility cases: positive SARS‐CoV‐2 testFacility controls: negative SARS‐CoV‐2 test, visiting the same EDs and being testedCountry: USA (San Diego, CA)Dates: 10 March 2020‐19 March 2020Symptoms and severity:all patients presenting to ED who were eligible for targeted testing (= patients presenting with symptoms related to COVID‐19 infection (fever and cough or shortness of breath)\ntravel within 14 days to countries with high rates of infection (at that time China, Iran, Italy, Japan, and South Korea) or\nrisk factors for infection complications (including age or comorbid conditions) or\nthe patient was a healthcare worker who could potentially expose others at risk\ncomorbidities 101/235 (43.0%) (cases: 8/27 (29.6%), controls 93/208 (44.7%))\nDemographics: age (\u003c 18 years: 0.7%, 18‐64 years: 83.4%, \u003e 65 years: 15.9%); gender: cases M/F%: 55.2/44.8; controls M/F%: 52.8/47.2; all M/F%: 53.0/47.0Exposure history: recent travel (5.5%), 90.6% symptom‐based criteria for testing, no known exposure history based\nIndex tests Fever\nTarget condition and reference standard(s) TC: SARS‐CoV‐2 infection\nRS: Commercial RT‐PCR test ‐ ePLex SARS‐CoV‐2 test (nasopharyngeal swab)\nFlow and timing Probably no time interval between index test and RS, but 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? Yes \nWas a case‐control design avoided? Yes \nDid the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? Unclear \nDid the study avoid inappropriate inclusions? Yes \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? 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? Unclear 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

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-HP","denotations":[{"id":"T413","span":{"begin":525,"end":530},"obj":"Phenotype"},{"id":"T414","span":{"begin":535,"end":540},"obj":"Phenotype"},{"id":"T415","span":{"begin":544,"end":563},"obj":"Phenotype"},{"id":"T416","span":{"begin":1308,"end":1313},"obj":"Phenotype"},{"id":"T417","span":{"begin":1318,"end":1323},"obj":"Phenotype"},{"id":"T418","span":{"begin":1327,"end":1346},"obj":"Phenotype"},{"id":"T419","span":{"begin":1993,"end":1998},"obj":"Phenotype"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A413","pred":"hp_id","subj":"T413","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/HP_0001945"},{"id":"A414","pred":"hp_id","subj":"T414","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/HP_0012735"},{"id":"A415","pred":"hp_id","subj":"T415","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/HP_0002098"},{"id":"A416","pred":"hp_id","subj":"T416","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/HP_0001945"},{"id":"A417","pred":"hp_id","subj":"T417","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/HP_0012735"},{"id":"A418","pred":"hp_id","subj":"T418","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/HP_0002098"},{"id":"A419","pred":"hp_id","subj":"T419","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/HP_0001945"}],"text":"Tolia 2020\nStudy characteristics\nPatient Sampling Purpose: diagnosis of acute SARS‐CoV‐2 infectionDesign: cross‐sectional, retrospective studyRecruitment: all patients presenting to 1 of 2 EDs, located at an urban teaching hospital, and academic quaternary medical centre, within the same healthcare system who had targeted testing based on clinician's decision during the initial 10 days of test availabilitySample size: n = 283 (29 cases)Inclusion criteria:patients presenting with symptoms related to COVID‐19 infection (fever and cough or shortness of breath)\ntravel within 14 days to countries with high rates of infection (at that time China, Iran, Italy, Japan, and South Korea) or\nrisk factors for infection complications (including age or comorbid conditions) or\nthe patient was a healthcare worker who could potentially expose others at risk and clinician made decision for testing\nExclusion criteria: not specified\nPatient characteristics and setting Facility cases: positive SARS‐CoV‐2 testFacility controls: negative SARS‐CoV‐2 test, visiting the same EDs and being testedCountry: USA (San Diego, CA)Dates: 10 March 2020‐19 March 2020Symptoms and severity:all patients presenting to ED who were eligible for targeted testing (= patients presenting with symptoms related to COVID‐19 infection (fever and cough or shortness of breath)\ntravel within 14 days to countries with high rates of infection (at that time China, Iran, Italy, Japan, and South Korea) or\nrisk factors for infection complications (including age or comorbid conditions) or\nthe patient was a healthcare worker who could potentially expose others at risk\ncomorbidities 101/235 (43.0%) (cases: 8/27 (29.6%), controls 93/208 (44.7%))\nDemographics: age (\u003c 18 years: 0.7%, 18‐64 years: 83.4%, \u003e 65 years: 15.9%); gender: cases M/F%: 55.2/44.8; controls M/F%: 52.8/47.2; all M/F%: 53.0/47.0Exposure history: recent travel (5.5%), 90.6% symptom‐based criteria for testing, no known exposure history based\nIndex tests Fever\nTarget condition and reference standard(s) TC: SARS‐CoV‐2 infection\nRS: Commercial RT‐PCR test ‐ ePLex SARS‐CoV‐2 test (nasopharyngeal swab)\nFlow and timing Probably no time interval between index test and RS, but 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? Yes \nWas a case‐control design avoided? Yes \nDid the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? Unclear \nDid the study avoid inappropriate inclusions? Yes \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? 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? Unclear 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-sentences

LitCovid-PubTator