Incidence of acute pulmonary embolism among patients hospitalized with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Background:</ns3:bold> Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic, which is associated with venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism (PE). This study aimed to estimate the pooled incidence of PE among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 within the published literature. </ns3:p> <ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Methods:</ns3:bold> This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. An electronic search using MEDLINE /PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane, and OpenGray databases was conducted May 19th, 2020. Eligible studies included sufficient data to calculate the incidence of PE diagnosed during hospitalization in patients with COVID-19. Case reports were excluded. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (observational cohort and case-control), AXIS tool (cross-sectional), and quality assessment tool (case series). Demographics and PE incidence data were extracted from the included studies and analyzed with R language. The pooled incidence of PE in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was calculated. </ns3:p> <ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Results:</ns3:bold> The database search identified 128 records. Ten observational studies were eligible and were included in the meta-analysis with a total of 1722 patients (mean age= 63.36). .The incidence of PE was noted to be higher in males. The D-dimer levels were </ns3:p> <ns3:p>specified between PE group and non-PE group in only three studies, while the remaining either reported it improperly or had missing data.The pooled PE incidence in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was 17% (95% CI: 0.1-0.26). There was a high degree of study heterogeneity (I2 = 94%, p<0.01).</ns3:p> <ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Conclusion:</ns3:bold> The pooled PE incidence in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is 17%. This increased incidence is greater than that previously reported in the general population of non-COVID-19. Attention and further investigation of this risk is warranted. </ns3:p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".