1918 Influenza: A Winnebago County, Wisconsin Perspective

Shors, Teri; McFadden, Susan H.

doi:10.3121/cmr.2009.863

Cited by 14 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In alignment with our findings, acute TE was also reported during the life‐threatening influenza pandemic of 1918–1919 (commonly known as Spanish flu), with hair loss developing 2–6 weeks after the onset of fever 24,32 . Moreover, we observed that acute TE occurred around a mean duration of 74 days after the onset of COVID‐19 symptoms.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

A systematic review of acute telogen effluvium, a harrowing post‐COVID‐19 manifestation

Hussain¹,

Agarwala

Iqbal

et al. 2021

Journal of Medical Virology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review focuses on the clinical features, physical examination findings, outcomes, and underlying pathology of acute telogen effluvium (TE), a type of diffuse hair loss, occurring in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) recovered patients. MEDLINE/PubMed and Embase databases were queried till October 2021 to identify studies reporting acute TE occurring after COVID‐19 recovery. Data were obtained from 19 studies, which included 465 patients who were diagnosed with acute TE. The median age of these patients was 44 years and 67.5% were females. The most common trichoscopic findings were decreased hair density, the presence of empty follicles, or short regrowing hair. The mean duration from COVID‐19 symptom onset to the appearance of acute TE was 74 days, which is earlier than classic acute TE. Most patients recovered from hair loss, while a few patients had persistent hair fall. Our results highlight the need to consider the possibility of post‐COVID‐19 acute TE in patients presenting with hair fall, with a history of COVID‐19 infection, in the context of COVID‐19 pandemic. Despite being a self‐limiting condition, hair loss post‐COVID‐19 is a stressful manifestation. Identifying COVID‐19 infection as a potential cause of acute TE will help the clinicians counsel the patients, relieving them from undue stress.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

A systematic review of acute telogen effluvium, a harrowing post‐COVID‐19 manifestation

Hussain¹,

Agarwala

Iqbal

et al. 2021

Journal of Medical Virology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, the benefits of hydroxychloroquine, which were touted early in the pandemic based on limited data, have subsequently failed to be replicated in multiple observational studies and RCTs 5,[24][25][26][27][28][29][30] . One poorly designed study combined with rapid publication led to considerable investment of both the scientific and medical community-akin to quinine being sold to the public as a miracle drug during the 1918 Spanish Influenza 31,32 . Moreover, as of June 30, 2020, ClinicalTrials.gov listed an astonishing 230 COVID-19 trials with hydroxychloroquine/plaquenil, and a recent living systematic review of observational studies and RCTs of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for COVID-19 demonstrated no evidence of benefit nor harm with concerns of severe methodological flaws in the included studies 33 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodological quality of COVID-19 clinical research

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic began in early 2020 with major health consequences. While a need to disseminate information to the medical community and general public was paramount, concerns have been raised regarding the scientific rigor in published reports. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the methodological quality of currently available COVID-19 studies compared to historical controls. A total of 9895 titles and abstracts were screened and 686 COVID-19 articles were included in the final analysis. Comparative analysis of COVID-19 to historical articles reveals a shorter time to acceptance (13.0[IQR, 5.0–25.0] days vs. 110.0[IQR, 71.0–156.0] days in COVID-19 and control articles, respectively; p < 0.0001). Furthermore, methodological quality scores are lower in COVID-19 articles across all study designs. COVID-19 clinical studies have a shorter time to publication and have lower methodological quality scores than control studies in the same journal. These studies should be revisited with the emergence of stronger evidence.

show abstract

“…5 25-30 One poorly designed study combined with rapid publication led to considerable investment of the scientific and medical community - akin to quinine being sold to the public as a miracle drug during the 1918 Spanish Influenza. 31 32 Moreover, as of June 30, 2020, ClinicalTrials.gov lists an astonishing 230 COVID-19 trials with hydroxychloroquine/plaquenil, and a recent systematic review of observational studies and RCTs demonstrate no evidence of benefit nor harm with concerns of severe methodological flaws in the included studies. 33…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodological Rigor in COVID-19 Clinical Research – A Systematic Review and Case-Control Analysis

Jung

Santo

Clifford

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To systematically evaluate the quality of reporting of currently available COVID-19 studies compared to historical controls. Design: A systematic review and case-control analysis Data sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until May 14, 2020 Study selection: All original clinical literature evaluating COVID-19 or SARS-CoV2 were identified and 1:1 historical control of the same study type in the same published journal was matched from the previous year Data extraction: Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full-texts and independently assessed methodological quality using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, QUADAS-2 Score, or case series checklist. Results: 9895 titles and abstracts were screened and 686 COVID-19 articles were included in the final analysis in which 380 (55.4%) were case series, 199 (29.0%) were cohort, 63 (9.2%) were diagnostic, 38 (5.5%) were case-control, and 6 (0.9%) were randomized controlled trials. Overall, high quality/low-bias studies represented less than half of COVID-19 articles - 49.0% of case series, 43.9% of cohort, 31.6% of case-control, and 6.4% of diagnostic studies. We matched 539 control articles to COVID-19 articles from the same journal in the previous year for a final analysis of 1078 articles. The median time to acceptance was 13.0 (IQR, 5.0-25.0) days in COVID-19 articles vs. 110.0 (IQR, 71.0-156.0) days in control articles (p<0.0001). Overall, methodological quality was lower in COVID-19 articles with 220 COVID-19 articles of high quality (41.0%) vs. 392 control articles (73.3%, p<0.0001) with similar results when stratified by study design. In both unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression, COVID-19 articles were associated with lower methodological quality (odds ratio, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.33, p<0.0001). Conclusion: Currently published COVID-19 studies were accepted more quickly and were found to be of lower methodological quality than comparative studies published in the same journal. Given the implications of these studies to medical decision making and government policy, greater effort to appropriately weigh the existing evidence in the context of emerging high-quality research is needed. Study registration: PROSPERO: CRD42020187318

show abstract

1918 Influenza: A Winnebago County, Wisconsin Perspective

Cited by 14 publications

References 15 publications

A systematic review of acute telogen effluvium, a harrowing post‐COVID‐19 manifestation

A systematic review of acute telogen effluvium, a harrowing post‐COVID‐19 manifestation

Methodological quality of COVID-19 clinical research

Methodological Rigor in COVID-19 Clinical Research – A Systematic Review and Case-Control Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About