4.5 Review

COVID-19 in health care workers - A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 38, 期 9, 页码 1727-1731

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.05.113

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objectives: It is essential to know the proportion of health care workers (HCW) who are COVID 19 positive, as well as the severity and mortality among them. Methods: This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and meta-analysis. Databases including PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched from December-31, 2019 to April-23, 2020. The search was limited to the studies that reported the data on the number of COVID-19 positive healthcare workers, among the COVID-19 positive patients. Case reports, duplicate publications, reviews, and family-based studies were excluded. The methodological quality of studies was assessed by the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS) tool. Results: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we pooled eleven studies to investigate the above factors. The overall proportion of HCW who were SARS-CoV-2 positive among all COVID-19 patients was 10.1% (95% CI: 5.3-14.9). This proportion varied according to the country of study i.e. China (7 studies) - 4.2%, 95% CI:2.4-6.0; United States (3 studies) - 17.8%, 95%CI:7.5-28.0; and Italy (1 study) - 9.0%, 95%CI:8.6-9.4. The incidence of severe or critical disease in HCW(9.9%, 95%CI:0.8-18.9) was significantly lower (p < 0.001) than the incidence of severe or critical disease in all COVID-19 positive patients (29.4%, 95%CI:18.6-40.2). Similarly, the mortality among HCW (0.3%, 95%CI:0.2-0.4) was also significantly lower (p < 0.001) as compared to that of all patients (2.3%, 95%CI:2.2-2.4). Conclusion: Health care workers who are COVID-19 positive constituted a significant proportion of all COVID-19 patients; but the severity and mortality were lower among them. (c) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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