MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3037042410 · doi:10.4103/cjrm.cjrm_34_20

Could it be COVID-19? Atypical presentations in a pandemic

2020· article· en· W3037042410 sur OpenAlexaffvenue
ElaineM Blau, Claire Schiller

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Journal of Rural Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Établissements canadiensMcMaster UniversitySouth Bruce Grey Health Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Pandemic2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)VirologyMedicineOutbreakInfectious disease (medical specialty)Pathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Dear Editor, We write in the midst of the COVID-19 global pandemic to share and stimulate discussion on the diagnostic challenge presented by novel coronavirus. The diverse and atypical symptoms attributed to COVID-19 infections require a high degree of suspicion in almost all patient presentations.[1,2,3] This clinical ambiguity is amplified in the face of testing limitations,[4] with delays in results and poor sensitivity, as well as atypical presentations of other conditions, as we encountered in this case. Recently, a patient in their sixties arrived by emergency medical services to our rural hospital. They presented with agitation and delirium of such severity that the administration of both chemical and physical restraint was required for ambulance egress. The patient was febrile (37.9), tachycardic (110), normotensive, normopneic (SpO296%) with convincing cellulitis of the leg. Collateral history identified no preceding sick contacts or travel, and a history of fibromyalgia with no routine medication use. After initial assessment in the negative pressure room, the patient was admitted to hospital with (1) droplet precautions, (2) IV fluids and (3) IV antibiotics for cellulitis. Altered sensorium persisted; head CT was negative. Blood and urine cultures, toxicology, chest X-ray [Figure 1], electrocardiogram and troponin were negative. The delirium lingered 4 days into admission while, interestingly, the fever resolved, and cellulitis, neutrophilia and markedly elevated CRP were decreasing. The possibility of atypical presentation of COVID-19 infection was again considered; nasopharyngeal swab however proved negative.Figure 1: Portable chest X-ray with no focal abnormalities.On day 5, the patient developed a new fever of 38.7 degrees, prompting repeat investigations and a second COVID-19 swab. Chest X-ray [Figure 2] showed new patchy ground-glass left-upper lobe pneumonia. An oral macrolide was added along with salbutamol and tiotropium in light of the patient's 15 pack-a-year smoking history.Figure 2: Chest X-ray with evidence of the left upper lobe pneumonia.The patient's respiratory status declined slightly in the following day with new cough, exertional shortness of breath and decreasing oxygen saturation to 92% on room air. A third chest X-ray [Figure 3] suggested multifocal pneumonia with COVID-19 in the differential. Fortunately, the patient improved over the ensuing 2 days; however, discharge preceded the results of the second COVID-19 swab, which, ultimately, proved to be negative. Given the clinical possibility of COVID-19 (1) public health was involved in discharge planning and (2) hospital occupational health was alerted to ensure that staff surveillance occurred if deemed appropriate.Figure 3: Portable chest X-ray with findings of multifocal pneumonia.The COVID-19 pandemic has made clinical decision-making challenging. This case demonstrates the importance of a high index of suspicion in admitted non-COVID-19 patients, and repeated appropriate investigations to assist in further clarifying diagnoses. It raises the question of how best to manage patients who, during a pandemic, have clinical findings very suggestive of a contagious disease but have negative and/or pending swabs on discharge, and unconvincing contact or travel history within the context of increasing community spread. Clinical management in the face of diagnostic uncertainty is something we understand well in rural and remote settings. In the absence of confirmatory testing, treatment decisions during a pandemic must be made that ensure patient and community well-being. In our case, consultation with public health helped guide outpatient management and follow-up of this patient with COVID-19-like atypical pneumonia – at their recommendation, the patient was instructed to remain in self-isolation until 24 h symptom free. It will be important for rural clinicians to share strategies and challenges in this evolving clinical landscape, as COVID-19 considerations continue to permeate most aspects of care. Financial support and sponsorship: Nil. Conflicts of interest: There are no conflicts of interest.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,117
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,742
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,117
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,210
Tête enseignante GPT0,490
Écart entre enseignants0,280 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2020
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Journal of Rural MedicineMême sujetCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesTravaux en français237 207