MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197240121 · doi:10.37796/2211-8039.1154

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Literature Review from a Nursing Perspective

2021· review· en· W3197240121 on OpenAlexaff
Amir Emami Zeydi, Mohammad Javad Ghazanfari, Farzam Shaikhi Sanandaj, Reza Panahi, Hamed Mortazavi, Keyvan Karimifar, Samad Karkhah, Joseph Osuji

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedicine · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)NursingScopusPandemicNursing careDiseaseMEDLINENursing Interventions ClassificationPsychological interventionNursing managementEvidence-based nursingIntensive care medicineAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: As the COVID-19 pandemic ravages the world, nursing resources, and capacities play an essential role in disease management. This literature review focuses on the central issues related to the nursing care of patients affected by COVID-19. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This literature review was conducted with an extensive search of databases, including PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), and Scopus, using the keywords "COVID19", "2019-nCoV disease", "2019 novel coronavirus infection", "Nurse", "NursingCare", and" Nursing management." The span of the literature search was between December 01, 2020, and January 12, 2021. A total of 28 original and English-language articles were selected for inclusion in the review. RESULTS: Nursing interventions such as monitoring, oxygen therapy, and the use of Extra Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) in the care of COVID-19 patients, caring for ICU patients with COVID-19, rehabilitation of COVID-19 patients, nurses' experiences and barriers in the care of patients with COVID-19, and also the ethical challenges in the care of patients with COVID-19, were found to be valuable in managing COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: Nurses have a pivotal role to play in the care of patients with COVID-19. Therefore, providing comprehensive and quality nursing care supported by experience and research is necessary to successfully reduce the length of hospital stay and decrease the morbidity and mortality rates 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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
grokno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
opusno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0130.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.242
GPT teacher head0.588
Teacher spread0.346 · 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

Labeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designOther design · Systematic review
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

Citations42
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomedicineSame topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207