4.7 Article

A comparative-descriptive analysis of clinical characteristics in 2019-coronavirus-infected children and adults

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL VIROLOGY
卷 92, 期 9, 页码 1596-1602

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.25835

关键词

2019 novel coronavirus; clinical manifestations; comparative analysis; differences between children and adults; laboratory parameters

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acute respiratory disease caused by 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) has rapidly spread throughout China. Children and adults show a different clinical course. The purpose of the current study is to comparatively analyze the clinical characteristics of 2019-nCoV infection in children and adults and to explore the possible causes for the discrepancies present. The medical records of 25 adults and 7 children confirmed cases of 2019-2019-nCoV acute respiratory diseases were reviewed retrospectively. All children were family clusters. The total adult patients were differentiated into the local residents of Wuhan, a history of travel to Wuhan and direct contact with people from Wuhan. The numbers were 14 (56%), 10 (40%), and 1 (4%), respectively. The median incubation period of children and adults was 5 days (ranged, 3-12 days) and 4 days (ranged, 2-12 days), respectively. Diarrhoea and/or vomiting (57.1%) were demic by World Health Organiza more common in children, whereas for adults it was myalgia or fatigue (52%). On admission, the percentage of children having pneumonia (5%, 71.4%) was roughly the same as adults (20%, 80%). A total of 20% of adults had leucopoenia, but leukocytosis was more frequently in children (28.6%, P=.014). A higher number of children had elevated creatine kinase isoenzyme (57.1% vs 4%, P=.004). Antiviral therapy was given to all adult patients but to none of the children. In summary, knowledge of these differences between children and adults will not only be helpful for the clinical diagnosis of 2019-nCoV disease, but also for a future discussion on age-specific coronavirus infection.

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