PMC:7386785 / 83459-87012 JSON TXT

Annnotations TAB JSON ListView MergeView

LitCovid-PD-FMA-UBERON

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-FMA-UBERON","denotations":[{"id":"T84","span":{"begin":313,"end":318},"obj":"Body_part"},{"id":"T85","span":{"begin":557,"end":568},"obj":"Body_part"},{"id":"T86","span":{"begin":907,"end":912},"obj":"Body_part"},{"id":"T87","span":{"begin":1028,"end":1038},"obj":"Body_part"},{"id":"T88","span":{"begin":1511,"end":1522},"obj":"Body_part"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A84","pred":"fma_id","subj":"T84","obj":"http://purl.org/sig/ont/fma/fma9576"},{"id":"A85","pred":"fma_id","subj":"T85","obj":"http://purl.org/sig/ont/fma/fma82740"},{"id":"A86","pred":"fma_id","subj":"T86","obj":"http://purl.org/sig/ont/fma/fma9576"},{"id":"A87","pred":"fma_id","subj":"T87","obj":"http://purl.org/sig/ont/fma/fma62863"},{"id":"A88","pred":"fma_id","subj":"T88","obj":"http://purl.org/sig/ont/fma/fma82740"}],"text":"Ai 2020a\nStudy characteristics\nPatient Sampling Purpose: diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 pneumoniaDesign: cross‐sectional multicentre prospective studyRecruitment: hospitalised pneumonia patientsSample size: n = 53 (20 cases)Inclusion criteria: suspected SARS‐COV‐2 pneumonia patients, defined as having pneumonia after chest CT (with 1 of the 2 following criteria met: fever or respiratory symptoms, normal or decreased WBC counts/decreasedExclusion criteria: not defined\nPatient characteristics and setting Facility cases: confirmed case: a positive SARS‐COV‐2 nucleotides result either by metagenomic sequencing or RT‐PCR assay for nasopharyngeal swab specimensFacility controls: pneumonia patients confirmed not to be infected by SARS‐Cov2 (2 PCR tests, 2 days in between)Country: ChinaDates: 22 January 2020‐19 February 2020Symptoms and severity: suspected SARS‐COV‐2 pneumonia (NCP): having pneumonia after chest CT with 1 of the 2 following criteria met: fever or respiratory symptoms, normal or decreased WBC counts/decreased lymphocyte counts, and a travel history or contact with patients with fever or respiratory symptoms from Hubei Province or confirmed cases within 2 weeksDemographics: median age cases 37 years, controls 39 years, gender distribution cases (M/F: 50/50), controls (M/F: 48.5/51.5)Exposure history: not specified\nIndex tests Fever\nDry cough\nDiarrhoea\nFatigue\nHeadache\nVomiting\nAbdominal pain\nTarget condition and reference standard(s) TC: COVID‐19 pneumonia\nRS: a positive SARS‐COV‐2 nucleotides result either by metagenomic sequencing or RT‐PCR assay for nasopharyngeal swab specimens, repeated after 2 days if negative on day 0\nFlow and timing Time interval not specified. Reference standard at day 0 and day 2, index tests from electronic medical records but stated at pneumonia onset\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? No \nCould the selection of patients have introduced bias? High risk \nAre there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question? High\nDOMAIN 2: Index Test (All tests)\nWere the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? Unclear \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":"T60","span":{"begin":313,"end":318},"obj":"Body_part"},{"id":"T61","span":{"begin":907,"end":912},"obj":"Body_part"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A60","pred":"uberon_id","subj":"T60","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/UBERON_0001443"},{"id":"A61","pred":"uberon_id","subj":"T61","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/UBERON_0001443"}],"text":"Ai 2020a\nStudy characteristics\nPatient Sampling Purpose: diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 pneumoniaDesign: cross‐sectional multicentre prospective studyRecruitment: hospitalised pneumonia patientsSample size: n = 53 (20 cases)Inclusion criteria: suspected SARS‐COV‐2 pneumonia patients, defined as having pneumonia after chest CT (with 1 of the 2 following criteria met: fever or respiratory symptoms, normal or decreased WBC counts/decreasedExclusion criteria: not defined\nPatient characteristics and setting Facility cases: confirmed case: a positive SARS‐COV‐2 nucleotides result either by metagenomic sequencing or RT‐PCR assay for nasopharyngeal swab specimensFacility controls: pneumonia patients confirmed not to be infected by SARS‐Cov2 (2 PCR tests, 2 days in between)Country: ChinaDates: 22 January 2020‐19 February 2020Symptoms and severity: suspected SARS‐COV‐2 pneumonia (NCP): having pneumonia after chest CT with 1 of the 2 following criteria met: fever or respiratory symptoms, normal or decreased WBC counts/decreased lymphocyte counts, and a travel history or contact with patients with fever or respiratory symptoms from Hubei Province or confirmed cases within 2 weeksDemographics: median age cases 37 years, controls 39 years, gender distribution cases (M/F: 50/50), controls (M/F: 48.5/51.5)Exposure history: not specified\nIndex tests Fever\nDry cough\nDiarrhoea\nFatigue\nHeadache\nVomiting\nAbdominal pain\nTarget condition and reference standard(s) TC: COVID‐19 pneumonia\nRS: a positive SARS‐COV‐2 nucleotides result either by metagenomic sequencing or RT‐PCR assay for nasopharyngeal swab specimens, repeated after 2 days if negative on day 0\nFlow and timing Time interval not specified. Reference standard at day 0 and day 2, index tests from electronic medical records but stated at pneumonia onset\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? No \nCould the selection of patients have introduced bias? High risk \nAre there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question? High\nDOMAIN 2: Index Test (All tests)\nWere the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? Unclear \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

LitCovid-PD-CLO

LitCovid-PD-CHEBI

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-CHEBI","denotations":[{"id":"T32","span":{"begin":557,"end":568},"obj":"Chemical"},{"id":"T33","span":{"begin":1485,"end":1487},"obj":"Chemical"},{"id":"T34","span":{"begin":1511,"end":1522},"obj":"Chemical"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A32","pred":"chebi_id","subj":"T32","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_36976"},{"id":"A33","pred":"chebi_id","subj":"T33","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_73819"},{"id":"A34","pred":"chebi_id","subj":"T34","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_36976"}],"text":"Ai 2020a\nStudy characteristics\nPatient Sampling Purpose: diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 pneumoniaDesign: cross‐sectional multicentre prospective studyRecruitment: hospitalised pneumonia patientsSample size: n = 53 (20 cases)Inclusion criteria: suspected SARS‐COV‐2 pneumonia patients, defined as having pneumonia after chest CT (with 1 of the 2 following criteria met: fever or respiratory symptoms, normal or decreased WBC counts/decreasedExclusion criteria: not defined\nPatient characteristics and setting Facility cases: confirmed case: a positive SARS‐COV‐2 nucleotides result either by metagenomic sequencing or RT‐PCR assay for nasopharyngeal swab specimensFacility controls: pneumonia patients confirmed not to be infected by SARS‐Cov2 (2 PCR tests, 2 days in between)Country: ChinaDates: 22 January 2020‐19 February 2020Symptoms and severity: suspected SARS‐COV‐2 pneumonia (NCP): having pneumonia after chest CT with 1 of the 2 following criteria met: fever or respiratory symptoms, normal or decreased WBC counts/decreased lymphocyte counts, and a travel history or contact with patients with fever or respiratory symptoms from Hubei Province or confirmed cases within 2 weeksDemographics: median age cases 37 years, controls 39 years, gender distribution cases (M/F: 50/50), controls (M/F: 48.5/51.5)Exposure history: not specified\nIndex tests Fever\nDry cough\nDiarrhoea\nFatigue\nHeadache\nVomiting\nAbdominal pain\nTarget condition and reference standard(s) TC: COVID‐19 pneumonia\nRS: a positive SARS‐COV‐2 nucleotides result either by metagenomic sequencing or RT‐PCR assay for nasopharyngeal swab specimens, repeated after 2 days if negative on day 0\nFlow and timing Time interval not specified. Reference standard at day 0 and day 2, index tests from electronic medical records but stated at pneumonia onset\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? No \nCould the selection of patients have introduced bias? High risk \nAre there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question? High\nDOMAIN 2: Index Test (All tests)\nWere the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? Unclear \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 / 83459-87012 JSONTXT

Annnotations TAB JSON ListView MergeView

PMC:7386785 / 83459-87012 JSON TXT