4.6 Review

Epidemiological, comorbidity factors with severity and prognosis of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

AGING-US
卷 12, 期 13, 页码 12493-12503

出版社

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/aging.103579

关键词

COVID-19; meta-analysis; SARS-Cov-2; 2019-nCoV

资金

  1. Science Foundation for Outstanding Young People of the Army Medical University
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81600636]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in an attempt to systematically collect and evaluate the associations of epidemiological, comorbidity factors with the severity and prognosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the guidelines proposed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Sixty nine publications met our study criteria, and 61 studies with more than 10,000 COVID-19 cases were eligible for the quantitative synthesis. We found that the males had significantly higher disease severity (RR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.13-1.27, P <0.001) and more prognostic endpoints. Older age was found to be significantly associated with the disease severity and six prognostic endpoints. Chronic kidney disease contributed mostly for death (RR: 7.10, 95% CI: 3.14-16.02), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) for disease severity (RR: 4.20, 95% CI: 2.82-6.25), admission to intensive care unit (ICU) (RR: 5.61, 95% CI: 2.68-11.76), the composite endpoint (RR: 8.52, 95% CI: 4.36-16.65,), invasive ventilation (RR: 6.53, 95% CI: 2.70-15.84), and disease progression (RR: 7.48, 95% CI: 1.60-35.05), cerebrovascular disease for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (RR: 3.15, 95% CI: 1.23-8.04), coronary heart disease for cardiac abnormality (RR: 5.37, 95% CI: 1.74-16.54). Our study highlighted that the male gender, older age and comorbidities owned strong epidemiological evidence of associations with the severity and prognosis of COVID-19.

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

4.6
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