Comorbidities, clinical signs and symptoms, laboratory findings, imaging features, treatment strategies, and outcomes in adult and pediatric patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since December 2019, a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has triggered a world-wide pandemic with an enormous medical and societal-economic toll. Thus, our aim was to gather all available information regarding comorbidities, clinical signs and symptoms, outcomes, laboratory findings, imaging features, and treatments in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). EMBASE, PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies published in any language between December 1st, 2019 and March 28th, 2020. Original studies were included if the exposure of interest was an infection with SARS-CoV-2 or confirmed COVID-19. The primary outcome was the risk ratio of comorbidities, clinical signs and symptoms, laboratory findings, imaging features, treatments, outcomes, and complications associated with COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. We performed random-effects pairwise meta-analyses for proportions and relative risks, I2, T2, and Cochrane Q, sensitivity analyses, and assessed publication bias. 148 studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review and meta-analysis with 12′149 patients (5′739 female) and a median age of 47.0 [35.0–64.6] years. 617 patients died from COVID-19 and its complication. 297 patients were reported as asymptomatic. Older age (SMD: 1.25 [0.78–1.72]; p < 0.001), being male (RR = 1.32 [1.13–1.54], p = 0.005) and pre-existing comorbidity (RR = 1.69 [1.48–1.94]; p < 0.001) were identified as risk factors of in-hospital mortality. The heterogeneity between studies varied substantially (I2; range: 1.5–98.2%). Publication bias was only found in eight studies (Egger's test: p < 0.05). Our meta-analyses revealed important risk factors that are associated with severity and mortality of COVID-19.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".