创伤与 COVID-19:PCR 检测呈阳性和阴性的外伤患者在临床和辅助临床方面的相似性

Golnar Sabetian, Hossein Abdolrahimzadeh Fard, Mina Ostovan, Sina Azadikhah, Farid Zand, Mansoor Masjedi, Naeimehossadat Asmarian
{"title":"创伤与 COVID-19:PCR 检测呈阳性和阴性的外伤患者在临床和辅助临床方面的相似性","authors":"Golnar Sabetian, Hossein Abdolrahimzadeh Fard, Mina Ostovan, Sina Azadikhah, Farid Zand, Mansoor Masjedi, Naeimehossadat Asmarian","doi":"10.30476/BEAT.2022.96357.1387","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare clinical and paraclinical similarities between trauma patients with positive RT-PCR tests (PCR+ve) and the RT-PCR negative ones (PCR -ve).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This a case-control study, where cases had a PCR+ve and controls had a negative result. Two groups were compared regarding (para) clinical values. Multivariable binary logistic regression analysis investigated the variables predicting COVID-19 and the mortality rate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both groups were similar regarding the clinical findings and comorbidities (<i>p</i>>0.05). PCR+ve group had lower lymphocyte count (1.41 [1.45] vs. 1.66 [1.61], <i>p</i>=0.030), CPK level (411 [928.75] vs. 778 [1946.5]. <i>p</i>=0.006) and CRP level (17 [42.5] vs. 24 [50.75], <i>p</i>=0.004). However, none of these findings were significant in the multivariable analysis. Finally, PCR+ve group had increased odds of death (OR=2.88; 95% CI=1.22-7.41).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Unlike our primary hypothesis, the study failed to mark any significant (para) clinical features guiding us to detect COVID-19 earlier in trauma patients. Moreover, the PCR+ve group is at increased mortality risk. A larger, multicentric prospective study should be designed to address this issue.</p>","PeriodicalId":9333,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of emergency and trauma","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/69/84/bet-10-172.PMC9758711.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trauma and COVID-19: Clinical and Paraclinical similarities between Trauma Patients with Positive and Negative PCR Tests.\",\"authors\":\"Golnar Sabetian, Hossein Abdolrahimzadeh Fard, Mina Ostovan, Sina Azadikhah, Farid Zand, Mansoor Masjedi, Naeimehossadat Asmarian\",\"doi\":\"10.30476/BEAT.2022.96357.1387\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare clinical and paraclinical similarities between trauma patients with positive RT-PCR tests (PCR+ve) and the RT-PCR negative ones (PCR -ve).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This a case-control study, where cases had a PCR+ve and controls had a negative result. Two groups were compared regarding (para) clinical values. Multivariable binary logistic regression analysis investigated the variables predicting COVID-19 and the mortality rate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both groups were similar regarding the clinical findings and comorbidities (<i>p</i>>0.05). PCR+ve group had lower lymphocyte count (1.41 [1.45] vs. 1.66 [1.61], <i>p</i>=0.030), CPK level (411 [928.75] vs. 778 [1946.5]. <i>p</i>=0.006) and CRP level (17 [42.5] vs. 24 [50.75], <i>p</i>=0.004). However, none of these findings were significant in the multivariable analysis. Finally, PCR+ve group had increased odds of death (OR=2.88; 95% CI=1.22-7.41).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Unlike our primary hypothesis, the study failed to mark any significant (para) clinical features guiding us to detect COVID-19 earlier in trauma patients. Moreover, the PCR+ve group is at increased mortality risk. A larger, multicentric prospective study should be designed to address this issue.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9333,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bulletin of emergency and trauma\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/69/84/bet-10-172.PMC9758711.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bulletin of emergency and trauma\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30476/BEAT.2022.96357.1387\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of emergency and trauma","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30476/BEAT.2022.96357.1387","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要比较 RT-PCR 检测阳性(PCR+ve)和 RT-PCR 阴性(PCR-ve)创伤患者的临床和辅助临床相似性:这是一项病例对照研究,病例的检测结果为 PCR+ve,对照组的检测结果为阴性。方法:这是一项病例对照研究。多变量二元逻辑回归分析调查了预测 COVID-19 和死亡率的变量:结果:两组患者的临床表现和合并症相似(P>0.05)。PCR+ve组的淋巴细胞计数(1.41 [1.45] vs. 1.66 [1.61],P=0.030)、CPK水平(411 [928.75] vs. 778 [1946.5],P=0.006)和CRP水平(17 [42.5] vs. 24 [50.75],P=0.004)较低。然而,这些结果在多变量分析中均不显著。最后,PCR+ve 组的死亡几率增加(OR=2.88;95% CI=1.22-7.41):与我们的主要假设不同,该研究未能发现任何重要的临床特征,无法指导我们在创伤患者中更早地发现 COVID-19。此外,PCR+ve 组患者的死亡风险增加。应设计一项更大规模的多中心前瞻性研究来解决这一问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Trauma and COVID-19: Clinical and Paraclinical similarities between Trauma Patients with Positive and Negative PCR Tests.

Objective: To compare clinical and paraclinical similarities between trauma patients with positive RT-PCR tests (PCR+ve) and the RT-PCR negative ones (PCR -ve).

Methods: This a case-control study, where cases had a PCR+ve and controls had a negative result. Two groups were compared regarding (para) clinical values. Multivariable binary logistic regression analysis investigated the variables predicting COVID-19 and the mortality rate.

Results: Both groups were similar regarding the clinical findings and comorbidities (p>0.05). PCR+ve group had lower lymphocyte count (1.41 [1.45] vs. 1.66 [1.61], p=0.030), CPK level (411 [928.75] vs. 778 [1946.5]. p=0.006) and CRP level (17 [42.5] vs. 24 [50.75], p=0.004). However, none of these findings were significant in the multivariable analysis. Finally, PCR+ve group had increased odds of death (OR=2.88; 95% CI=1.22-7.41).

Conclusion: Unlike our primary hypothesis, the study failed to mark any significant (para) clinical features guiding us to detect COVID-19 earlier in trauma patients. Moreover, the PCR+ve group is at increased mortality risk. A larger, multicentric prospective study should be designed to address this issue.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: BEAT: Bulletin of Emergency And Trauma is an international, peer-reviewed, quarterly journal coping with original research contributing to the field of emergency medicine and trauma. BEAT is the official journal of the Trauma Research Center (TRC) of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS), Hungarian Trauma Society (HTS) and Lusitanian Association for Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ALTEC/LATES) aiming to be a publication of international repute that serves as a medium for dissemination and exchange of scientific knowledge in the emergency medicine and trauma. The aim of BEAT is to publish original research focusing on practicing and training of emergency medicine and trauma to publish peer-reviewed articles of current international interest in the form of original articles, brief communications, reviews, case reports, clinical images, and letters.
期刊最新文献
An Epidemiological Investigation on Patients with Non-traumatic Subarachnoid Hemorrhage from 2010 to 2020. A Novel Skin Incision for Posterior Fossa Midline and Paramedian Lesions: A Technical Note and Case Series. Surgical Treatment versus Conservative Management of Splenic Rupture: Outcomes and Risk Factors. Effect of Intranasal Remifentanil versus Lidocaine on Facilitation of Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion and Cardiovascular Response: A Double-blind Clinical Trial Study. Ten-year Causes of Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis in Patients Referred to Ghaem Hospital from 2009 to 2019.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1