4.7 Article

Association of inflammatory markers with the severity of COVID-19: A meta-analysis

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.05.055

关键词

COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Inflammatory markers; Severity; Meta-analysis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [62041208]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Studies reported associations of inflammatory markers with the severity of COVID-19, but conclusions were inconsistent. We aimed to provide an overview of the association of inflammatory markers with the severity of COVID-19. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Wanfang and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database until March 20, 2020. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random or fixed-effects models. Results: A total of 16 studies comprising 3962 patients with COVID-19 were included in our analysis. Random-effect results demonstrated that patients with COVID-19 in the nonsevere group had lower levels for CRP (WMD = -41.78 mg/l, 95% CI = [-52.43, -31.13], P < 0.001), PCT (WMD = -0.13 ng/ml, 95% CI = [-0.20, -0.05], P < 0.001), IL-6 (WMD = -21.32 ng/l, 95% CI = [-28.34, -14.31], P < 0.001), ESR (WMD = -8 mm/h, 95% CI = [ -14, -2], P = 0.005), SAA(WMD = -43.35 mu g/ml, 95% CI = [-80.85, -5.85], P = 0.020) and serum ferritin (WMD = -398.80 mg/I, 95% CI = [-625.89, -171.71], P < 0.001), compared with those in the severe group. Moreover, survivors had a lower level of IL-6 than non-survivors (WMD = -4.80 ng/ml, 95% CI = [-5.87, -3.73], P < 0.001). These results were consistent through sensitivity analysis and publication bias assessment. Conclusions: The meta-analysis highlights the association of inflammatory markers with the severity of COVID-19. Measurement of inflammatory markers might assist clinicians to monitor and evaluate the severity and prognosis of COVID-19. (C) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Society for Infectious Diseases.

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