《Lancet,6月26日,COVID-19 in 7780 pediatric patients: A systematic review》

  • 来源专题:COVID-19科研动态监测
  • 编译者: zhangmin
  • 发布时间:2020-06-27
  • COVID-19 in 7780 pediatric patients: A systematic review

    Ansel Hoang

    Kevin Chorath †

    Axel Moreira

    Mary Evans

    Finn Burmeister-Morton

    Fiona Burmeister

    et al.

    Open AccessPublished:June 26, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100433

    Abstract

    Background

    Studies summarizing the clinical picture of COVID-19 in children are lacking. This review characterizes clinical symptoms, laboratory, and imaging findings, as well as therapies provided to confirmed pediatric cases of COVID-19.

    Methods

    Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, we searched four medical databases (PubMed, LitCovid, Scopus, WHO COVID-19 database) between December 1, 2019 to May 14, 2020 using the keywords “novel coronavirus”, “COVID-19” or “SARS-CoV-2”. We included published or in press peer-reviewed cross-sectional, case series, and case reports providing clinical signs, imaging findings, and/or laboratory results of pediatric patients who were positive for COVID-19. Risk of bias was appraised through the quality assessment tool published by the National Institutes of Health. PROSPERO registration # CRD42020182261.

  • 原文来源:https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30177-2/fulltext
相关报告
  • 《6月26日_7780名COVID-19儿童临床症状分析》

    • 来源专题:COVID-19科研动态监测
    • 编译者:xuwenwhlib
    • 发布时间:2020-06-29
    • 信息名称:7780名COVID-19儿童临床症状分析 1.时间:2020年6月26日 2.机构或团队:德克萨斯大学圣安东尼奥健康科学中心 3.事件概要: 德克萨斯大学圣安东尼奥健康科学中心在THE LANCET子刊Eclinical Medicine发表论文“COVID-19 in 7780 pediatric patients: A systematic review”,该文章介绍了COVID-19儿科确诊病例的临床症状、实验室和影像学表现以及治疗方法。 根据PRISMA指南,文章在2019年12月1日至2020年5月14日期间,使用关键词“novel coronavirus”、“ COVID-19”或“SARS-CoV-2”搜索了四个医学数据库(PubMed、LitCovid、Scopus、WHO COVID-19数据库),纳入了发表或出版同行评议的横断面、病例系列和病例报告,提供COVID-19阳性儿科患者的临床体征、影像学结果和实验室结果,通过国家卫生研究院发布的质量评估工具进行评估。文章收集了来自26个国家的131项研究,包括7780名儿童患者。发热(59.1%)和咳嗽(55.9%)是最常见的症状,但19.3%的儿童无症状。肺x线片和计算机断层扫描分别显示了斑片状病变(21.0%)和毛玻璃混浊(32.9%)。免疫缺陷儿童或呼吸/心脏疾病患者是COVID-19患者中最大的群体(233人中有152人)。5.6%的儿童被观察到并发感染,异常的实验室标记包括血清d-二聚体、降钙素原、肌酸激酶和白介素-6,共有7例死亡(0•09%)和11例儿童(0•14%)纳入多系统炎症综合征。 4.附件: 原文链接:https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30177-2/fulltext
  • 《LANCET,4月6日,School closure and management practices during coronavirus outbreaks including COVID-19: a rapid systematic review》

    • 来源专题:COVID-19科研动态监测
    • 编译者:xuwenwhlib
    • 发布时间:2020-04-07
    • School closure and management practices during coronavirus outbreaks including COVID-19: a rapid systematic review Prof Russell M Viner, PhD Simon J Russell, PhD Helen Croker, PhD Jessica Packer, MEpi Joseph Ward, MBBS Claire Stansfield, PhD Published:April 06, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30095-X In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, 107 countries had implemented national school closures by March 18, 2020. It is unknown whether school measures are effective in coronavirus outbreaks (eg, due to severe acute respiratory syndrome [SARS], Middle East respiratory syndrome, or COVID-19). We undertook a systematic review by searching three electronic databases to identify what is known about the effectiveness of school closures and other school social distancing practices during coronavirus outbreaks. We included 16 of 616 identified articles. School closures were deployed rapidly across mainland China and Hong Kong for COVID-19. However, there are no data on the relative contribution of school closures to transmission control. Data from the SARS outbreak in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Singapore suggest that school closures did not contribute to the control of the epidemic. Modelling studies of SARS produced conflicting results. Recent modelling studies of COVID-19 predict that school closures alone would prevent only 2–4% of deaths, much less than other social distancing interventions. Policy makers need to be aware of the equivocal evidence when considering school closures for COVID-19, and that combinations of social distancing measures should be considered. Other less disruptive social distancing interventions in schools require further consideration if restrictive social distancing policies are implemented for long periods.