MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3187991318 · doi:10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102594

Global burden of acute myocardial injury associated with COVID-19: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression

2021· review· en· W3187991318 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Semagn Mekonnen Abate, Bahiru Mantefardo, Solomon Nega, Yigrem Ali Chekole, Bivash Basu, Siraj Ahmed Ali, Moges Taddesse

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Medicine and Surgery · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisMEDLINEObservational studySystematic reviewCritical appraisalCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Emergency medicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePathologyAlternative medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The body of evidence showed that there is a strong correlation between acute myocardial Injury and COVID-19 infection. However, the link between acute myocardial infection and COVID-19, the prevalence, reliability of diagnostic modalities, independent predictors, and clinical outcomes are still uncertain and a topic of debate. The current study was designed to determine the prevalence, determinants, and outcomes of acute myocardial injury based on a systematic review and meta-analysis the global published peer-reviewed works of literature. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed/Medline; Science direct, CINHAL, and LILACS from December 2019 to May 2021. All observational studies reporting the prevalence of AMI were included while case reports and reviews were excluded. The data were extracted with two independent authors in a customized format. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa appraisal tool. Results: A total of 397 articles were identified from different databases. Thirty-seven Articles with 21, 204 participants were included while seven studies were excluded. The meta-analysis revealed that the pooled prevalence of myocardial injury during the COVID-19 pandemic was 22.33 % (95 % CI: 17.86 to 26.81, 37). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis showed that mortality among patients with an acute myocardial injury during COVID-19 was more than four times more likely as compared to those without AMI. This necessitates a mitigating strategy to prevent and manage before its clinical outcomes getting worse. HIGHLIGHTS The meta-analysis revealed that more than one-fifth of patients with COVID-19 sustained AMI The incidence of mortality among patients with AMI during COVID-19 pandemic was four times more likely as compared those without AMI Prevalence of AMI was three times more likely in patients with history of Coronary artery disease Smoking and hypertension were the independent predictors of acute myocardial Injury

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.060
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.373
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.138 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Medicine and SurgerySame topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsFrench-language works237,207