Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (COVID-19) poses substantial challenges for health care systems. With a vastly expanding amount of publications on COVID-19, clinicians need evidence synthesis to produce guidance for handling patients with COVID-19. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we examine which routine laboratory tests are associated with severe COVID-19 disease. Content PubMed (Medline), Scopus, and Web of Science were searched until the 22nd of March 2020 for studies on COVID-19. Eligible studies were original articles reporting on laboratory tests and outcome of patients with COVID-19. Data were synthesised and we conducted random effects meta-analysis and estimated mean difference (MD) and standard mean difference at biomarker level for disease severity. Risk of bias and applicability concern was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies -2. Summary 45 studies were included, of which 21 publications were used for the meta-analysis. Studies were heterogeneous, but had low risk of bias and applicability concern in terms of patient selection and reference standard. Severe disease was associated with higher white blood cell count (MD 1.28 x 109/L), neutrophil count (MD 1.49 x 109/L), C-reactive protein (MD 49.2 mg/L), lactate dehydrogenase (MD 196 U/L), D-dimer (SMD 0.58), and aspartate aminotransferase (MD 8.5 U/L), all p < 0.001. Furthermore, low lymphocyte count (MD -0.32 x 109/L), platelet count (MD -22.4 x 109/L), and haemoglobin (MD -4.1 g/L), all p < 0.001, were also associated with severe disease. In conclusion, several routine laboratory tests are associated with disease severity in COVID-19.

BackgroundEstimating the true risk of fetal malformations attributable to the use of medications is difficult and perception of risk by health professionals will impact their counseling and treatment of patients who need medication during pregnancy. The objective of this study was to assess the perception of the teratogenic risk of 9 commonly and 3 rarely prescribed drugs among general practitioners and specialists in obstetrics/gynecology.MethodsAll 811 general practitioners in the Region of Southern Denmark and all 502 specialist obstetricians/gynecologists in Denmark as a whole were invited to participate in the study based on an online questionnaire. Medians and interpercentile ranges of the perceived background risk and perceived risks for each of the drugs were included in the questionnaire.ResultsOne hundred forty three (18 %) general practitioners and 138 (27 %) obstetricians/gynecologists participated. Estimates provided by the participants were generally in accordance with current knowledge of drugs with established safety during pregnancy. Perceptions of risks associated with warfarin and retinoid exposure were severely underestimated.ConclusionsUnderstanding of teratogenic background risk and specific risks associated with in utero exposure to 12 different drugs generally approached the established knowledge. The risk associated with warfarin and retinoid exposure was severely underestimated by both groups of health care professionals, while general practitioners specifically overestimated the risk of sertraline and citalopram to some extent. In Denmark, general practitioners can prescribe antidepressants, and even minor misconceptions of the teratogenic potential of citalopram and sertraline may be of clinical relevance. In Denmark, systemic retinoids can only be prescribed by a dermatologist, and warfarin treatment is only rarely initiated in women of the fertile age without involvement of specialists in internal medicine. Hence, the active knowledge on the teratogenic potential of these drugs is likely to be less accurate among general practitioners and obstetricians/gynecologists; although still of clinical importance since these specialists are largely involved in the counselling of pregnant women.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12884-016-1025-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundModern pneumatic transportation systems (PTSs) are widely used in hospitals for rapid blood sample transportation. The use of PTS may affect sample integrity. Impact on sample integrity in relation to hemolysis and platelet assays was investigated and also, we wish to outline a process-based and outcome-based validation model for this preanalytical component.MethodsThe effect of PTS was evaluated by drawing duplicate blood samples from healthy volunteers, one sent by PTS and the other transported manually to the core laboratory. Markers of hemolysis (potassium, lactate dehydrogenase [LD] and hemolysis index [HI]) and platelet function and activation were assessed. Historic laboratory test results of hemolysis markers measured before and after implementation of PTS were compared. Furthermore, acceleration profiles during PTS and manual transportation were obtained from a mini g logger in a sample tube.ResultsHand-carried samples experienced a maximum peak acceleration of 5 g, while peaks at almost 15 g were observed for PTS. No differences were detected in results of potassium, LD, platelet function and activation between PTS and manual transport. Using past laboratory data, differences in potassium and LD significantly differed before and after PTS installation for all three lines evaluated. However, these estimated differences were not clinically significant.ConclusionsIn this study, we found no evidence of PTS-induced hemolysis or impact on platelet function or activation assays. Further, we did not find any clinically significant changes indicating an acceleration-dependent impact on blood sample quality. Quality assurance of PTS can be performed by surveilling outcome markers such as HI, potassium and LD.

Medications such as heparin administration given before blood sampling may confound biomarker discovery and should be carefully considered in such studies.