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

      INR and COVID-19 severity and mortality: A systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          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

          Objectives

          D-dimer elevations, suggesting a pro-thrombotic state and coagulopathy, predict adverse outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the clinical significance of other coagulation markers, particularly the international normalized ratio (INR), is not well established. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the INR in COVID-19.

          Methods

          A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus, between January 2020 and February 2021, for studies reporting INR values, measures of COVID-19 severity, and mortality (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021241468).

          Results

          Thirty-eight studies in 7440 COVID-19 patients with low disease severity or survivor status during follow up (50 ​% males, mean age 57 years) and 2331 with high severity or non-survivor status (60 ​% males, mean age 69 years) were identified. The INR was significantly prolonged in patients with severe disease or non-survivor status than in patients with mild disease or survivor status (standard mean difference, SMD, 0.60; 95 ​% confidence interval, CI 0.42 to 0.77; p ​< ​0.001). There was extreme between-study heterogeneity (I 2 ​= ​90.2 ​%; p ​< ​0.001). Sensitivity analysis, performed by sequentially removing each study and re-assessing the pooled estimates, showed that the magnitude and direction of the effect size was not modified. The Begg's and Egger's t-tests did not show publication bias. In meta-regression, the SMD of the INR was significantly associated with C-reactive protein (p ​= ​0.048) and D-dimer (p ​= ​0.001).

          Conclusions

          Prolonged INR values were significantly associated with COVID-19 severity and mortality. Both INR prolongation and D-dimer elevations can be useful in diagnosing COVID-19-associated coagulopathy and predicting clinical outcomes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references59

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

          The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
            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

              Abnormal coagulation parameters are associated with poor prognosis in patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia

              Abstract Background In the recent outbreak of novel coronavirus infection in Wuhan, China, significantly abnormal coagulation parameters in severe novel coronavirus pneumonia (NCP) cases were a concern. Objectives To describe the coagulation feature of patients with NCP. Methods Conventional coagulation results and outcomes of 183 consecutive patients with confirmed NCP in Tongji hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Results The overall mortality was 11.5%, the non‐survivors revealed significantly higher D‐dimer and fibrin degradation product (FDP) levels, longer prothrombin time and activated partial thromboplastin time compared to survivors on admission (P < .05); 71.4% of non‐survivors and 0.6% survivors met the criteria of disseminated intravascular coagulation during their hospital stay. Conclusions The present study shows that abnormal coagulation results, especially markedly elevated D‐dimer and FDP are common in deaths with NCP.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Adv Med Sci
                Adv Med Sci
                Advances in Medical Sciences
                Medical University of Bialystok. Published by Elsevier B.V.
                1896-1126
                1898-4002
                21 July 2021
                September 2021
                21 July 2021
                : 66
                : 2
                : 372-380
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
                [b ]Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
                [c ]Discipline of Clinical Pharmacology, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
                [d ]Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Flinders Medical Centre, Southern Adelaide Local Health Network, Adelaide, Australia
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. Discipline of Clinical Pharmacology, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University and Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, SA, 5042, Australia.
                Article
                S1896-1126(21)00041-9
                10.1016/j.advms.2021.07.009
                8292100
                34315012
                598848aa-85a8-4e2d-8209-8438b145c45c
                © 2021 Medical University of Bialystok. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

                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
                : 6 April 2021
                : 8 June 2021
                : 18 July 2021
                Categories
                Original Research Article

                international normalized ratio,coagulopathy,covid-19 severity,mortality

                Comments

                Comment on this article