6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Prognostic value of apolipoproteins in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Apolipoproteins are predictive biomarkers for cardiovascular, neoplasms and cerebrovascular diseases and are postulated as prognostic biomarkers in infectious diseases, as COVID-19. Thus, we assessed the prognosis value of apolipoproteins for COVID-19 severity and mortality.

          Methods

          We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using observational studies that reported the association between apolipoproteins and severity or mortality in COVID-19 patients. Newcastle-Ottawa was used for the quality assessment of included studies. Effects measurements were shown as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and Egger-test was developed for assessing the risk of bias publication.

          Results

          We analyzed 12 cohort studies (n = 3580). Patients with low ApoliproteinA1 (ApoA1) (OR 0.35; 95%CI 0.24 to 0.49; P < 0.001) and ApoliproteinB (ApoB) (OR = 0.78; 95%CI 0.69 to 0.87; P < 0.001) values had a higher risk of developing severe disease. ApoB/ApoA1 ratio showed no statistically significant association with higher odds of severity. Low ApoA1 levels were associated with higher odds of all-cause mortality (OR = 0.34; 95%CI 0.20 to 0.57; P < 0.001). ApoB values showed no statistically significant association with a high risk of all-cause mortality.

          Conclusion

          We suggest that adequate levels of ApoA1 and ApoB can be a protective factor for severity in COVID-19, and ApoB/ApoA1 ratio did not show predictive utility for severity.

          Related collections

          Most cited references61

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

          Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

            Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range

              Background In systematic reviews and meta-analysis, researchers often pool the results of the sample mean and standard deviation from a set of similar clinical trials. A number of the trials, however, reported the study using the median, the minimum and maximum values, and/or the first and third quartiles. Hence, in order to combine results, one may have to estimate the sample mean and standard deviation for such trials. Methods In this paper, we propose to improve the existing literature in several directions. First, we show that the sample standard deviation estimation in Hozo et al.’s method (BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13, 2005) has some serious limitations and is always less satisfactory in practice. Inspired by this, we propose a new estimation method by incorporating the sample size. Second, we systematically study the sample mean and standard deviation estimation problem under several other interesting settings where the interquartile range is also available for the trials. Results We demonstrate the performance of the proposed methods through simulation studies for the three frequently encountered scenarios, respectively. For the first two scenarios, our method greatly improves existing methods and provides a nearly unbiased estimate of the true sample standard deviation for normal data and a slightly biased estimate for skewed data. For the third scenario, our method still performs very well for both normal data and skewed data. Furthermore, we compare the estimators of the sample mean and standard deviation under all three scenarios and present some suggestions on which scenario is preferred in real-world applications. Conclusions In this paper, we discuss different approximation methods in the estimation of the sample mean and standard deviation and propose some new estimation methods to improve the existing literature. We conclude our work with a summary table (an Excel spread sheet including all formulas) that serves as a comprehensive guidance for performing meta-analysis in different situations. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-135) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Travel Med Infect Dis
                Travel Med Infect Dis
                Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease
                Published by Elsevier Ltd.
                1477-8939
                1873-0442
                6 November 2021
                November-December 2021
                6 November 2021
                : 44
                : 102200
                Affiliations
                [a ]Escuela de Medicina, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas, Lima, Peru
                [b ]Sociedad Cientifica de Estudiantes de Medicina de la Universidad Nacional de Trujillo, Trujillo, Peru
                [c ]Grupo Peruano de Investigación Epidemiológica, Unidad para la Generación y Síntesis de Evidencias en Salud, Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, Lima, Peru
                [d ]Universidad Privada San Juan Bautista, Lima, Peru
                [e ]Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación - IETSI, EsSalud, Lima, Peru
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author.
                Article
                S1477-8939(21)00241-6 102200
                10.1016/j.tmaid.2021.102200
                8575373
                34752921
                11f9750f-c83f-49da-a815-65236c2d2f8f
                © 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                : 13 October 2021
                : 2 November 2021
                : 3 November 2021
                Categories
                Article

                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                sars-cov-2,apoa,apob,prognosis,mortality
                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                sars-cov-2, apoa, apob, prognosis, mortality

                Comments

                Comment on this article