Evaluating clinical characteristics studies produced early in the Covid-19 pandemic: A systematic review

• Authors: Lakshmi Manoharan, University of Oxford; Jonthan WS Cattrall, University of Liverpool; Carlyn Harris, Emory University; Katherine Newell, University of Oxford; Blake Thomson, University of Oxford; Mark G Pritchard, University of Oxford; Peter G Bannister, Brighton and Sussex Medical School; Louise Sigfrid, University of Oxford; Tom Solomon, University of Liverpool; Peter W Horby, University of Oxford; Gail Carson, University of Oxford; Piero Olliaro, University of Oxford
• Journal Title: PLOS ONE
• Volume: Volume 16, Number 5
• Publisher: PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE | 2021-05-18, Pages e0251250-e0251250
• Type of Work: Article | Final Publisher PDF
• Publisher DOI: http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251250
• Subjects: Health Sciences, Public Health
• Keywords: Science & Technology; Multidisciplinary Sciences; Science & Technology - Other Topics; CHEST CT; LABORATORY FINDINGS; PNEUMONIA; OUTCOMES; INFECTION; FEATURES; WUHAN; SIGNS

Abstract

Objectives Clinical characterisation studies have been essential in helping inform research, diagnosis and clinical management efforts, particularly early in a pandemic. This systematic review summarises the early literature on clinical characteristics of patients admitted to hospital, and evaluates the quality of evidence produced during the initial stages of the pandemic. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE and Global Health databases were searched for studies published from January 1st 2020 to April 28th 2020. Studies which reported on at least 100 hospitalised patients with Covid-19 of any age were included. Data on clinical characteristics were independently extracted by two review authors. Study design specific critical appraisal tools were used to evaluate included studies: the Newcastle Ottawa scale for cohort and cross sectional studies, Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for case series and the Cochrane collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Results The search yielded 78 studies presenting data on 77,443 people. Most studies (82%) were conducted in China. No studies included patients from low- and middle-income countries. The overall quality of included studies was low to moderate, and the majority of studies did not include a control group. Fever and cough were the most commonly reported symptoms early in the pandemic. Laboratory and imaging findings were diverse with lymphocytopenia and ground glass opacities the most common findings respectively. Clinical data in children and vulnerable populations were limited. Conclusions The early Covid-19 literature had moderate to high risk of bias and presented several methodological issues. Early clinical characterisation studies should aim to include different at-risk populations, including patients in non-hospital settings. Pandemic preparedness requires collection tools to ensure observational studies are methodologically robust and will help produce high-quality data early on in the pandemic to guide clinical practice and public health policy.