Search

Background: Many models are published which predict outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The generalizability of many is unknown. We evaluated the performance of selected models from the literature and our own models to predict outcomes in patients at our institution.Methods: We searched the literature for models predicting outcomes in inpatients with COVID-19. We produced models of mortality or criticality (mortality or ICU admission) in a development cohort. We tested external models which provided sufficient information and our models using a test cohort of our most recent patients. The performance of models was compared using the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC).Results: Our literature review yielded 41 papers. Of those, 8 were found to have sufficient documentation and concordance with features available in our cohort to implement in our test cohort. All models were from Chinese patients. One model predicted criticality and seven mortality. Tested against the test cohort, internal models had an AUC of 0.84 (0.74-0.94) for mortality and 0.83 (0.76-0.90) for criticality. The best external model had an AUC of 0.89 (0.82-0.96) using three variables, another an AUC of 0.84 (0.78-0.91) using ten variables. AUC's ranged from 0.68 to 0.89. On average, models tested were unable to produce predictions in 27% of patients due to missing lab data.Conclusion: Despite differences in pandemic timeline, race, and socio-cultural healthcare context some models derived in China performed well. For healthcare organizations considering implementation of an external model, concordance between the features used in the model and features available in their own patients may be important. Analysis of both local and external models should be done to help decide on what prediction method is used to provide clinical decision support to clinicians treating COVID-19 patients as well as what lab tests should be included in order sets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The scientific community has classified COVID-19 as the worst pandemic in human history. The damage caused by the new disease was direct (e.g., deaths) and indirect (e.g., closure of economic activities). Within the latter category, we find infodemic phenomena such as the adoption of generic and stigmatizing names used to identify COVID-19 and the related novel coronavirus 2019 variants. These monikers have fostered the spread of health disinformation and misinformation and fomented racism and segregation towards the Chinese population. In this regard, we present a comprehensive infodemiological picture of Italy from the epidemic outbreak in December 2019 until September 2021. In particular, we propose a new procedure to examine in detail the web interest of users in scientific and infodemic monikers linked to the identification of COVID-19. To do this, we exploited the online tool Google Trends. Our findings reveal the widespread use of multiple COVID-19-related names not considered in the previous literature, as well as a persistent trend in the adoption of stigmatizing and generic terms. Inappropriate names for cataloging novel coronavirus 2019 variants of concern have even been adopted by national health agencies. Furthermore, we also showed that early denominations influenced user behavior for a long time and were difficult to replace. For these reasons, we suggest that the assignments of scientific names to new diseases are more timely and advise against mass media and international health authorities using terms linked to the geographical origin of the novel coronavirus 2019 variants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has seriously endangered the health and lives of Chinese people. In this study, we predicted the COVID-19 epidemic trend and estimated the efficacy of several intervention strategies in the mainland of China. Methods: According to the COVID-19 epidemic status, we constructed a compartmental model. Based on reported data from the National Health Commission of People's Republic of China during January 10–February 17, 2020, we estimated the model parameters. We then predicted the epidemic trend and transmission risk of COVID-19. Using a sensitivity analysis method, we estimated the efficacy of several intervention strategies. Results: The cumulative number of confirmed cases in the mainland of China will be 86 763 (95% CI: 86 067–87 460) on May 2, 2020. Up until March 15, 2020, the case fatality rate increased to 6.42% (95% CI: 6.16–6.68%). On February 23, 2020, the existing confirmed cases reached its peak, with 60 890 cases (95% CI: 60 350–61 431). On January 23, 2020, the effective reproduction number was 2.620 (95% CI: 2.567–2.676) and had dropped below 1.0 since February 5, 2020. Due to governmental intervention, the total number of confirmed cases was reduced by 99.85% on May 2, 2020. Had the isolation been relaxed from February 24, 2020, there might have been a second peak of infection. However, relaxing the isolation after March 16, 2020 greatly reduced the number of existing confirmed cases and deaths. The total number of confirmed cases and deaths would increase by 8.72 and 9.44%, respectively, due to a 1-day delayed diagnosis in non-isolated infected patients. Moreover, if the coverage of close contact tracing was increased to 100%, the cumulative number of confirmed cases would be decreased by 88.26% on May 2, 2020. Conclusions: The quarantine measures adopted by the Chinese government since January 23, 2020 were necessary and effective. Postponing the relaxation of isolation, early diagnosis, patient isolation, broad close-contact tracing, and strict monitoring of infected persons could effectively control the COVID-19 epidemic. April 1, 2020 would be a reasonable date to lift quarantine in Hubei and Wuhan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Aimed to summarize the characteristics of chest CT imaging in Chinese hospitalized patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) to provide reliable evidence for further guiding clinical routine. Methods: PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases were searched to identify relevant articles involving the features of chest CT imaging in Chinese patients with COVID-19. All data were analyzed utilizing R i386 4.0.0 software. Random-effects models were employed to calculate pooled mean differences. Results: 19 retrospective studies (1332 cases) were included. The results demonstrated that the combined proportion of ground-glass opacities (GGO) was 0.79 (95% CI 0.68, 0.89), consolidation was 0.34 (95% CI 0.23, 0.47); mixed GGO and consolidation was 0.46 (95% CI 0.37; 0.56); air bronchogram sign was 0.41 (95% CI 0.26; 0.55); crazy paving pattern was 0.32 (95% CI 0.17, 0.47); interlobular septal thickening was 0.55 (95% CI 0.42, 0.67); reticulation was 0.30 (95% CI 0.12, 0.48); bronchial wall thickening was 0.24 (95% CI 0.11, 0.40); vascular enlargement was 0.74 (95% CI 0.64, 0.86); subpleural linear opacity was 0.28 (95% CI 0.12, 0.48); intrathoracic lymph node enlargement was 0.03 (95% CI 0.00, 0.07); pleural effusions was 0.03 (95% CI 0.02, 0.06). The distribution in lung: the combined proportion of central was 0.05 (95% CI 0.01, 0.11); peripheral was 0.74 (95% CI 0.62, 0.84); peripheral involving central was 0.38 (95% CI 0.19, 0.75); diffuse was 0.19 (95% CI 0.06, 0.32); unifocal involvement was 0.09 (95% CI 0.05, 0.14); multifocal involvement was 0.57 (95% CI 0.48, 0.68); unilateral was 0.16 (95% CI 0.10, 0.23); bilateral was 0.83 (95% CI 0.78, 0.89); The combined proportion of lobes involved (> 2) was 0.70 (95% CI 0.61, 0.78); lobes involved (≦ 2) was 0.35 (95% CI 0.26, 0.44). Conclusion: GGO, vascular enlargement, interlobular septal thickening more frequently occurred in patients with COVID-19, which distribution features were peripheral, bilateral, involved lobes > 2. Therefore, based on chest CT features of COVID-19 mentioned, it might be a promising means for identifying COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate the psychological status of the general population in mainland China during the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and to explore the factors influencing psychological distress, in order to provide the basis for further psychological intervention programs. Methods: We administered three questionnaires on-line to a convenience sample of the general population from different regions of mainland China from February 1 to February 4, 2020. We used the Mandarin versions of the six-item Kessler psychological distress scale (K6), the Simplified Coping Style Questionnaire (SCSQ), and the Social Support Rating Scale (SSRS). We also collected demographic data and other information related to the COVID-19 outbreak. Multivariate binary logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors influencing psychological distress. Results: Of 1607 respondents, 1588 returned valid questionnaires and were included in the analysis. Nearly one quarter (22.8%) had high levels of psychological distress (K6 score ≥ 13). Individuals with higher psychological distress were more likely to be unmarried, spend more than 6 h per day searching for information about COVID-19, more frequently adopt a passive coping style, and report less social support than those with lower psychological distress. Conclusions: The COVID-19 outbreak in China has a great impact on the mental health status of the general population. Active coping strategies and increased social support are significantly correlated with decreased psychological distress, and may serve as the basis for psychological interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]