MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7093563159

COVID-19 Coagulopathies: Highlights of 2020–2021 Reported Data

2023· article· W7093563159 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository (University of Louisville) · 2023
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoagulopathyThrombosisPandemicIntensive care unitCoagulation testingMEDLINEDiseaseIntensive care
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has evolved dramatically over the past two years, and literature on COVID-19 coagulopathy has been overwhelming, which complicates the process of understanding the literature or assessing the quality of the data available. The objective of this narrative review was to highlight and analyze data reported on COVID-19-induced coagulopathy and its outcomes in patients with severe or critical disease over two years of the pandemic.\nMethods: Studies published in high-impact journals reporting on hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients, their coagulation parameters, and their thrombotic complications were included. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Ovid between Dec 1, 2019 and July 18, 2021. We abstracted the following data: country; date of publication; total number, age, and sex of patients; detailed coagulation parameters; thrombotic complications; and anticoagulation data. Descriptive statistics, including percentages and averages, were used where applicable; otherwise, individual study data were presented. We used the New Ottawa Scale (NOS) to assess risk of bias in the included studies.\nResults: A total of 18,581 patients (9,255 males) reported in 62 studies from 16 different countries published between March 2020 and July 2021 were included this review. The highest number of studies was reported in July–August 2020, with additional peaks in February and May 2021. Coagulation laboratory parameters were reported in most studies, with considerable heterogeneity. A key finding is a more pronounced pro-coagulant profile in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Controversy existed around thrombocytopenia and other platelet abnormalities in association with severe or late disease. Elevated D-dimer was consistently reported and was predictive of thrombosis and poor outcomes. Thrombosis occurred despite guideline-recommended thromboprophylaxis. Anticoagulation was reported in all studies, but practices were diverse, with 83% and 88% of studies in 2020 and 2021 respectively reporting thromboprophylaxis or thromboprophylaxis alongside treatment.\nConclusion: This narrative review provided highlights of the literature regarding coagulation impairments, thrombotic complications, and anticoagulation use in COVID-19 patients over two years of the pandemic. We hope this analysis contributes to better understanding of COVID-19-induced coagulopathy and supports investigators designing future studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Open science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.016
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.257 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository (University of Louisville)Same topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207