4.7 Review

A systematic review and meta-analysis of regional risk factors for critical outcomes of COVID-19 during early phase of the pandemic

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-89182-8

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mortality rates of COVID-19 vary globally, with different risk factors influencing critical outcomes such as sex, age, underlying medical conditions, symptoms, and laboratory findings. Regional studies suggest differences in the impact of respiratory and hepatic diseases, symptoms, and blood test results on critical outcomes between Asia, Europe, and North America.
The mortality rates of COVID-19 vary across the globe. While some risk factors for poor prognosis of the disease are known, regional differences are suspected. We reviewed the risk factors for critical outcomes of COVID-19 according to the location of the infected patients, from various literature databases from January 1 through June 8, 2020. Candidate variables to predict the outcome included patient demographics, underlying medical conditions, symptoms, and laboratory findings. The risk factors in the overall population included sex, age, and all inspected underlying medical conditions. Symptoms of dyspnea, anorexia, dizziness, fatigue, and certain laboratory findings were also indicators of the critical outcome. Underlying respiratory disease was associated higher risk of the critical outcome in studies from Asia and Europe, but not North America. Underlying hepatic disease was associated with a higher risk of the critical outcome from Europe, but not from Asia and North America. Symptoms of vomiting, anorexia, dizziness, and fatigue were significantly associated with the critical outcome in studies from Asia, but not from Europe and North America. Hemoglobin and platelet count affected patients differently in Asia compared to those in Europe and North America. Such regional discrepancies should be considered when treating patients with COVID-19.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据