Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 9 de 9
Filter
1.
Clin Infect Dis ; 74(4): 584-590, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1709326

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: With limited severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) testing capacity in the United States at the start of the epidemic (January-March 2020), testing was focused on symptomatic patients with a travel history throughout February, obscuring the picture of SARS-CoV-2 seeding and community transmission. We sought to identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the early weeks of the US epidemic. METHODS: All of Us study participants in all 50 US states provided blood specimens during study visits from 2 January to 18 March 2020. Participants were considered seropositive if they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies with the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and the EUROIMMUN SARS-CoV-2 ELISA in a sequential testing algorithm. The sensitivity and specificity of these ELISAs and the net sensitivity and specificity of the sequential testing algorithm were estimated, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: The estimated sensitivities of the Abbott and EUROIMMUN assays were 100% (107 of 107 [95% CI: 96.6%-100%]) and 90.7% (97 of 107 [83.5%-95.4%]), respectively, and the estimated specificities were 99.5% (995 of 1000 [98.8%-99.8%]) and 99.7% (997 of 1000 [99.1%-99.9%]), respectively. The net sensitivity and specificity of our sequential testing algorithm were 90.7% (97 of 107 [95% CI: 83.5%-95.4%]) and 100.0% (1000 of 1000 [99.6%-100%]), respectively. Of the 24 079 study participants with blood specimens from 2 January to 18 March 2020, 9 were seropositive, 7 before the first confirmed case in the states of Illinois, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Mississippi. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings identified SARS-CoV-2 infections weeks before the first recognized cases in 5 US states.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Population Health , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/diagnosis , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity
2.
Brief Bioinform ; 22(2): 800-811, 2021 03 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1343640

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This study aims at reviewing novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) datasets extracted from PubMed Central articles, thus providing quantitative analysis to answer questions related to dataset contents, accessibility and citations. METHODS: We downloaded COVID-19-related full-text articles published until 31 May 2020 from PubMed Central. Dataset URL links mentioned in full-text articles were extracted, and each dataset was manually reviewed to provide information on 10 variables: (1) type of the dataset, (2) geographic region where the data were collected, (3) whether the dataset was immediately downloadable, (4) format of the dataset files, (5) where the dataset was hosted, (6) whether the dataset was updated regularly, (7) the type of license used, (8) whether the metadata were explicitly provided, (9) whether there was a PubMed Central paper describing the dataset and (10) the number of times the dataset was cited by PubMed Central articles. Descriptive statistics about these seven variables were reported for all extracted datasets. RESULTS: We found that 28.5% of 12 324 COVID-19 full-text articles in PubMed Central provided at least one dataset link. In total, 128 unique dataset links were mentioned in 12 324 COVID-19 full text articles in PubMed Central. Further analysis showed that epidemiological datasets accounted for the largest portion (53.9%) in the dataset collection, and most datasets (84.4%) were available for immediate download. GitHub was the most popular repository for hosting COVID-19 datasets. CSV, XLSX and JSON were the most popular data formats. Additionally, citation patterns of COVID-19 datasets varied depending on specific datasets. CONCLUSION: PubMed Central articles are an important source of COVID-19 datasets, but there is significant heterogeneity in the way these datasets are mentioned, shared, updated and cited.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Datasets as Topic , Information Dissemination/methods , PubMed , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Humans
3.
Clin Infect Dis ; 74(4): 584-590, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1269569

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: With limited severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) testing capacity in the United States at the start of the epidemic (January-March 2020), testing was focused on symptomatic patients with a travel history throughout February, obscuring the picture of SARS-CoV-2 seeding and community transmission. We sought to identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the early weeks of the US epidemic. METHODS: All of Us study participants in all 50 US states provided blood specimens during study visits from 2 January to 18 March 2020. Participants were considered seropositive if they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies with the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and the EUROIMMUN SARS-CoV-2 ELISA in a sequential testing algorithm. The sensitivity and specificity of these ELISAs and the net sensitivity and specificity of the sequential testing algorithm were estimated, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: The estimated sensitivities of the Abbott and EUROIMMUN assays were 100% (107 of 107 [95% CI: 96.6%-100%]) and 90.7% (97 of 107 [83.5%-95.4%]), respectively, and the estimated specificities were 99.5% (995 of 1000 [98.8%-99.8%]) and 99.7% (997 of 1000 [99.1%-99.9%]), respectively. The net sensitivity and specificity of our sequential testing algorithm were 90.7% (97 of 107 [95% CI: 83.5%-95.4%]) and 100.0% (1000 of 1000 [99.6%-100%]), respectively. Of the 24 079 study participants with blood specimens from 2 January to 18 March 2020, 9 were seropositive, 7 before the first confirmed case in the states of Illinois, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Mississippi. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings identified SARS-CoV-2 infections weeks before the first recognized cases in 5 US states.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Population Health , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/diagnosis , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity
4.
J Am Med Inform Assoc ; 28(8): 1765-1776, 2021 07 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1246728

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To utilize, in an individual and institutional privacy-preserving manner, electronic health record (EHR) data from 202 hospitals by analyzing answers to COVID-19-related questions and posting these answers online. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a distributed, federated network of 12 health systems that harmonized their EHRs and submitted aggregate answers to consortia questions posted at https://www.covid19questions.org. Our consortium developed processes and implemented distributed algorithms to produce answers to a variety of questions. We were able to generate counts, descriptive statistics, and build a multivariate, iterative regression model without centralizing individual-level data. RESULTS: Our public website contains answers to various clinical questions, a web form for users to ask questions in natural language, and a list of items that are currently pending responses. The results show, for example, that patients who were taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers, within the year before admission, had lower unadjusted in-hospital mortality rates. We also showed that, when adjusted for, age, sex, and ethnicity were not significantly associated with mortality. We demonstrated that it is possible to answer questions about COVID-19 using EHR data from systems that have different policies and must follow various regulations, without moving data out of their health systems. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: We present an alternative or a complement to centralized COVID-19 registries of EHR data. We can use multivariate distributed logistic regression on observations recorded in the process of care to generate results without transferring individual-level data outside the health systems.


Subject(s)
Algorithms , COVID-19 , Computer Communication Networks , Confidentiality , Electronic Health Records , Information Storage and Retrieval/methods , Natural Language Processing , Common Data Elements , Female , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Registries
5.
J Am Med Inform Assoc ; 28(2): 393-401, 2021 02 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1054313

ABSTRACT

Our goal is to summarize the collective experience of 15 organizations in dealing with uncoordinated efforts that result in unnecessary delays in understanding, predicting, preparing for, containing, and mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic in the US. Response efforts involve the collection and analysis of data corresponding to healthcare organizations, public health departments, socioeconomic indicators, as well as additional signals collected directly from individuals and communities. We focused on electronic health record (EHR) data, since EHRs can be leveraged and scaled to improve clinical care, research, and to inform public health decision-making. We outline the current challenges in the data ecosystem and the technology infrastructure that are relevant to COVID-19, as witnessed in our 15 institutions. The infrastructure includes registries and clinical data networks to support population-level analyses. We propose a specific set of strategic next steps to increase interoperability, overall organization, and efficiencies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Electronic Health Records , Information Dissemination , Information Systems/organization & administration , Public Health Practice , Academic Medical Centers , Humans , Registries , United States
6.
medRxiv ; 2020 Sep 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-808753

ABSTRACT

There is an urgent need to answer questions related to COVID-19's clinical course and associations with underlying conditions and health outcomes. Multi-center data are necessary to generate reliable answers, but centralizing data in a single repository is not always possible. Using a privacy-protecting strategy, we launched a public Questions & Answers web portal (https://covid19questions.org) with analyses of comorbidities, medications and laboratory tests using data from 202 hospitals (59,074 COVID-19 patients) in the USA and Germany. We find, for example, that 8.6% of hospitalizations in which the patient was not admitted to the ICU resulted in the patient returning to the hospital within seven days from discharge and that, when adjusted for age, mortality for hospitalized patients was not significantly different by gender or ethnicity.

7.
Nature ; 584(7820):192-192, 2020.
Article | WHO COVID | ID: covidwho-734259

ABSTRACT

Letter to the Editor

9.
J Am Med Inform Assoc ; 27(9): 1437-1442, 2020 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-610367

ABSTRACT

Large observational data networks that leverage routine clinical practice data in electronic health records (EHRs) are critical resources for research on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Data normalization is a key challenge for the secondary use of EHRs for COVID-19 research across institutions. In this study, we addressed the challenge of automating the normalization of COVID-19 diagnostic tests, which are critical data elements, but for which controlled terminology terms were published after clinical implementation. We developed a simple but effective rule-based tool called COVID-19 TestNorm to automatically normalize local COVID-19 testing names to standard LOINC (Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes) codes. COVID-19 TestNorm was developed and evaluated using 568 test names collected from 8 healthcare systems. Our results show that it could achieve an accuracy of 97.4% on an independent test set. COVID-19 TestNorm is available as an open-source package for developers and as an online Web application for end users (https://clamp.uth.edu/covid/loinc.php). We believe that it will be a useful tool to support secondary use of EHRs for research on COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/classification , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Terminology as Topic , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Coronavirus Infections/classification , Electronic Health Records , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL