The Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) pandemic first broke out in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, and has now spread worldwide. Laboratory findings have been only partially described in some observational studies. To date, more comprehensive systematic reviews of laboratory findings on COVID-19 are missing. We performed a systematic review with a meta-analysis to assess laboratory findings in patients with COVID-19. Observational studies from three databases were selected. We calculated pooled proportions and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) using the random-effects model meta-analysis. A total of 1106 articles were identified from PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI (China), and other sources. After screening, 28 and 7 studies were selected for a systematic review and a meta-analysis, respectively. Of the 4,663 patients included, the most prevalent laboratory finding was increased Creactive protein (CRP; 73.6%, 95% CI 65.0-81.3%), followed by decreased albumin (62.9%, 95% CI 28.3-91.2%), increased erythrocyte sedimentation rate (61.2%, 95% CI 41.3-81.0%), decreased eosinophils (58.4%, 95% CI 46.5-69.8%), increased interleukin-6 (53.1%, 95% CI 36.0-70.0%), lymphopenia (47.9%, 95% CI 41.6-54.9%), and increased lactate dehydrogenase (LDH; 46.2%, 95% CI 37.9-54.7%). A meta-analysis of seven studies with 1905 patients showed that increased CRP (OR 3.0, 95% CI: 2.1-4.4), lymphopenia (OR 4.5, 95% CI: 3.3-6.0), and increased LDH (OR 6.7, 95% CI: 2.4-18.9) were significantly associated with severity. These results demonstrated that more attention is warranted when interpreting laboratory findings in patients with COVID-19. Patients with elevated CRP levels, lymphopenia, or elevated LDH require proper management and, if necessary, transfer to the intensive care unit.

The serological testing of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) and/or IgM is widely used in the diagnosis of COVID‐19. However, its diagnostic efficacy remains unclear. In this study, we searched for diagnostic studies from the Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, CNKI, and Wanfang databases to calculate the pooled diagnostic accuracy measures using bivariate random‐effects model meta‐analysis. As a result, 22 from a total of 1613 articles, including 2282 patients with SARS‐CoV‐2 and 1485 healthy persons or patients without SARS‐CoV‐2, were selected for a meta‐analysis. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under curve of the summary receiver operator curve (SROC) were: (a) 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79‐0.90), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98‐1.00), and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97‐0.99) for anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG and (b) 0.74 (95% CI: 0.65‐0.81), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97‐1.00), and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93‐0.97) for IgM. A subgroup analysis among detection methods indicated the sensitivity of IgG and IgM using enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay were slightly lower than those using gold immunochromatography assay (GICA) and chemiluminescence immunoassay ( P > .05). These results showed that the detection of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG and IgM had high diagnostic efficiency to assist the diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. And, GICA might be used as the preferred method for its accuracy and simplicity.

Bullous scabies (BS) is a rare atypical clinical variant of scabies and is easily confused with bullous disorders. The diagnosis of BS is always a challenge, and physicians often misdiagnose BS patients. Patients with BS admitted from 2012 to 2020 were enrolled in this study. The clinical, dermoscopic, and pathological characteristics of the patients were analyzed retrospectively. Ten patients with BS were enrolled in this study. Seven of the 10 patients were male. The bullae were most commonly found on the thighs and arms (80% of patients). Only 30% of patients (3/10) tested positive for mites and/or eggs by the initial skin scraping, but 100% (5/5) of the patients who received dermoscopy tested positive. Among these 10 patients, only five received a skin biopsy. Subepidermal (4/5) and intraepidermal (1/5) bullae with eosinophil and neutrophil infiltration were observed in five patients. Direct immunofluorescence (DIF) indicated linear deposition of IgG in the basement membrane zone in three patients. Physicians should consider the possibility of BS in patients with blisters, pruritus, and poor response to corticosteroids. Dermoscopy should be prioritized for the differential diagnosis of BS to exclude other bullous disorders. Finally, a biopsy should be performed on each patient with bullae.

No abstract

The diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy (DS) for scabies, a highly contagious parasitic disease, remains disputed. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of DS in scabies, analyze the factors influencing DS, and explore its role in post-treatment evaluation. Patients with suspected scabies were randomly divided into 2 groups: 71 patients in the skin scraping (SS) group and 73 patients in the DS group. The diagnostic efficiencies of SS and DS in these groups were calculated. We also analyzed the influence of body part and investigator competence on the accuracy of DS. Then 16 body parts with typical signs of scabies were monitored by DS 2 and 4 day after sulfur ointment treatment. The sensitivity and specificity of DS were 98.3% and 88.5%, respectively. Hands, arms, and the abdomen had higher positivity rates than other body parts (<i>P</i><0.001). The accuracy of dermatologists’ interpretations of images negative for scabies in the intermediate- and high-level groups was higher than that in the low-level group (<i>P</i><0.001). At follow-up, the mites were still visible on 43.8% to 62.5% of the skin lesions 2 and 4 day after sulfur ointment treatment. These results showed that DS could significantly increase the accuracy of diagnosing scabies owing to its high sensitivity and specificity. Therefore, it may be useful for monitoring clinical responses to anti-parasitic treatment.