The Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): A PRISMA Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Clinical and Paraclinical characteristics =================================================================================================================================== * Hamidreza Hasani * Shayan Mardi * Sareh Shakerian * Nooshin Taherzadeh-Ghahfarokhi * Parham Mardi ## Abstract An outbreak of pneumonia, caused by a novel coronavirus (COVID-19) was Identified in China in Dec 2019. This virus expanded worldwide, causing global concern. Clinical, laboratory and imaging features of this infection are characterized in some observational studies. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the frequency of clinical, laboratory, and CT features in COVID-19 patients. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis using three databases to identify clinical, laboratory, and CT features of rRT-PCR confirmed cases of COVID-19. Data for 3420 patients from 30 observational studies were included. Overall, the results showed that fever (84.2%, 95%CI 82.6-85.7), cough (62%, 95%CI 60-64), and fatigue (39.4%, 95%CI 37.2-41.6%) were the most prevalent symptoms in COVID-19 patients. Increased CRP level, decreased lymphocyte count, and increased D-dimer level were the most common laboratory findings. Among COVID-19 patients, 92% had a positive CT finding, most prevalently GGO (60%, 95%CI 58-62) and peripheral distribution (64%, 95%CI 60-69). These results demonstrate the clinical, paraclinical, and imaging features of COIVD-19. Keywords * Coronavirus * COVID-19 * PRISMA * Clinical * Paraclinical ## Background In December 2019, the first case of unknown origin pneumonia was identified in Wuhan, the capital city of Hubei province. By Jan 7, 2020, Chinese scientists had isolated a novel virus belongs to coronaviruses family and classified it as a type of RNA virus[1]. Although primary zoonotic transmission of this virus, associated with a large seafood market (Huanan seafood market), has started the outbreak, person-to-person transmission of the virus started a pandemic involving 197 countries [2] [3]. The clinical outcomes of COVID-19 infection are various, including asymptomatic infection, mild upper respiratory tract illness, severe viral pneumonia, and even death. Patients are presented with various clinical manifestations such as fever, dyspnea, and cough[4]. Initially, some studies have observed particular imaging patterns on chest radiography and computed tomography in COVID-19 patients [5]. As our knowledge increased, recent studies claimed that the sensitivity of CT scan is higher compared to rRT-PCR in the diagnosis of SARS-Cov-2 infection[6]. Laboratory findings are essential in order to evaluate patients’ complications and triaging them [7]. Complete blood count as an easy and affordable test detects disorders such as leukopenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia that are contributed to patients’ prognosis [8]. In response to inflammation induced by COVID-19 acute-phase reactants may increase or decrease [9]. These factors may contribute to the patient’s outcomes. This meta-analysis aims to measure the most common clinical, laboratory, and imaging findings among COVID-19 patients. ## Methods ### Protocol In this study, we used a protocol based on the transparent reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA)(Table1). View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/22/2020.04.19.20071456/T1) Table 1. Study selection and characteristics ### Eligibility criteria In this study, all included patients were confirmed using real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR). All searched articles were cohorts or case controls, and no language restrictions were conducted. All articles published before drafting the manuscript, where have been included. Review articles, opinion articles, and letters not presenting original data were excluded from the analysis. ### Information sources and search strategy A systematic search was performed using Medline/PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science based on following keywords: (“clinical manifestation” AND COVID-19) or (“clinical manifestation” AND 2019-nCoV) or (“clinical manifestation” AND COVID) or (“clinical manifestation” AND Corona) or (“clinical characteristics” AND COVID-19) or (“clinical characteristics” AND 2019-nCoV) or (“clinical characteristics” AND COVID) or (“clinical characteristics” AND corona) or (liver AND COVID-19) or (liver AND 2019-nCoV) or (liver AND COVID) or (liver AND Corona) or (“blood gas” AND COVID-19) or (“blood gas” AND 2019-nCoV) or (“blood gas” AND COVID) or (“blood gas” AND corona) or (COVID-19 AND radiography) or (2019-nCoV AND radiography) or (Corona AND radiography) or (COVID AND radiography) or (COVID-19 AND radiographic) or (2019-nCoV AND radiographic) or (Corona AND radiographic) or (COVID AND radiographic) or (COVID-19 AND CT) or (2019-nCoV AND CT) or (Corona AND CT) or (COVID AND CT) or (COVID-19 AND “computed tomography”) or (2019-nCoV AND “computed tomography”) or (Corona AND “computed tomography”) or (COVID AND “computed tomography”) or (CBC AND corona) or (CBC AND COVID) or (CBC AND COVID-19) or (CBC AND 2019-nCoV). systematic search was conducted prior to Mar-25 2020 and three independent researchers evaluated all papers. ### Study selection In the initial search, we assessed title and abstract, followed by a full-text evaluation based on previously described inclusion and exclusion criteria. When two articles reported one patient’s characteristics, we merged all reported data and assumed as a single individual. Descriptive studies reporting clinical symptoms, laboratory, and radiological findings were used to perform a meta-analysis ### Data collection process and data items Three independent researchers filled data extraction forms containing study type, Journal, publication date, sample size, age, gender, clinical characteristics, laboratory, and radiological findings Conflicts were resolved by another researcher ### Assessment of methodological quality and risk of bias For quality assessment, we used the appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS). Publication bias was assessed with a funnel plot for the standard error by logit event rate, with no evidence of bias (figure1,2, and 3). A mixed-effect model was used to calculate the pooled estimate and 95% CI. Due to limitations in several studies, results were reported in the fixed-effect model. Given variable degrees of data heterogeneity, and the inherent heterogeneity in any systematic review studies published in the literature Heterogenicity indexes such as Q-value, I-squared, and Tau Squared are mentioned in table 4, 5, and 6. Also, figures 4, 5, and 6 depict Pool prevalence Frost Plots of each data (clinical, laboratory, and imaging). ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/04/22/2020.04.19.20071456/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/22/2020.04.19.20071456/F1) Figure 1. clinical characteristics funnel-plot for the Standard Error by Logit Event rate to assess for publication bias. ![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/04/22/2020.04.19.20071456/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/22/2020.04.19.20071456/F2) Figure 2. CT-scan funnel-plot for the Standard Error by Logit Event rate to assess for publication bias. ![Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/04/22/2020.04.19.20071456/F3.medium.gif) [Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/22/2020.04.19.20071456/F3) Figure 3. laboratory finding funnel-plot for the Standard Error by Logit Event rate to assess for publication bias. ![Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/04/22/2020.04.19.20071456/F4.medium.gif) [Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/22/2020.04.19.20071456/F4) Figure 4. Pool prevalence forest plots of clinical manifestations ![Figure 5.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/04/22/2020.04.19.20071456/F5.medium.gif) [Figure 5.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/22/2020.04.19.20071456/F5) Figure 5. Pool prevalence for estplots of laboratory findings ![Figure 6.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/04/22/2020.04.19.20071456/F6.medium.gif) [Figure 6.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/22/2020.04.19.20071456/F6) Figure 6. Pool prevalence forest plots of CT-scan findings ### Statistical approach Effect size pooled estimate for imaging and clinical data, was measured based on Event rate, Logit event rate, and standard error. Considering that the computational index of laboratory data was median in order to meta-analysis them in CMA v.2. software, we use the following formula ![Formula][1] Estimating the mean and variance from the median m = Median a = The smallest value (minimum) b = The largest value (maximum) n = The size of the sample [10] The meta-analysis was performed using Stata, the software Open Meta [Analyst], and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software (CMA) ve.2. Pooled estimate and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were used to summarize the weighted effect size for each study grouping variable. ## Results ### Study selection and characteristics 207 articles were included based on a search strategy, which, as previously described (Table1). The full text of 65 articles was evaluated after the title and abstract assessment. Twenty-four articles were excluded due to inadequate data. Finally, the meta-analysis was performed on 30 articles (three different Subjects). The article’s data Summary is reported in Table 2. Also, demographic characteristics and comorbidities of studies are demonstrated in Table 3. View this table: [Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/22/2020.04.19.20071456/T2) Table 2. Characteristics of the included studies on COVID-19, 2020. View this table: [Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/22/2020.04.19.20071456/T3) Table 3. Demographical characteristics, and comorbidities of the study subjects In this study, we evaluate 30 articles. all papers were from china, and 3420 individual’s data were evaluated. All studies were Cross-sectional, and 27 Variables were included. ### Clinical manifestations and laboratory findings According to clinical manifestations, fever (84.2%, 95%CI 82.6-85.7), cough (62%, 95%CI 60-64), and fatigue (39.4%, 95%CI 37.2-41.6) are the most prevalent clinical symptoms among patients (Fig 4). laboratory studies show increased level in following tests: CRP (9.59mg/l, 95%CI 6.58-12.61) with normal range of 0-3.0mg/l, D-dimer (567.89ng/ml, 95%CI 348.15-787.62) with normal range of 0-500ng/ml, LDH (255.96U/L, 95%CI 209.26-302.66) with normal range of 135-250U/L, and procalcitonin (0.09ng/ml 95%CI 0.03-0.15) which is normally less than 0.05ng/ml in healthy individual. Also, the level of some laboratory factors are lower than normal; such as lymphocyte (0.97*10^9/L, 95%CI 0.03-0.15), Albumin (38.94g/L, 95%CI 37.5-40.83), and PaO2(73.77mmHg, 95%CI 52.8-94.74) concerning the normal range of 1-4*10^9/L, 40-55g/L, and 83-108mmHg respectively (Fig 5). ### CT-scan finding Among all patients infected by COVID-19 (confirmed by RT-PCR), 85% had abnormalities in CT-scans. In most of them, the Bilateral pneumonia was dominant (58% 95CI 56-61), other image findings were: ground-glass opacities (GGO) (60%, 95%CI 58-62), Peripheral Distribution (64%, 95%CI 60-69), and Consolidation (41%, 95%CI 37-45) in those with CT-scan results (Fig 6). ## Discussion From Dec-2019, more than 500,000 cases of new unknown origin pneumonia have been confirmed all over the world [40]. It was primarily known as 2019-nCov, then WHO decided to name this novel coronavirus “SARS-Cov2” [41]. COVID-19 is a severe condition that is compromising the health condition of people in all countries worldwide [42]. Identifying the various characteristics of this infection is vital for controlling the outbreak in different countries [43]. Clinical, laboratory, and image findings are essential to evaluate the different aspects of infection [44]. Different outcomes of COVID-19 (from asymptomatic infection to death) and Contagiousness of this virus, even in its incubation period [45], emphasize why discovering different characteristics are crucial in controlling this pandemic. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we describe the most common clinical data on COVID-19 confirmed cases that were published during the first months of the outbreak. We analyze 2422, RT-PCR confirmed patients, for different clinical manifestations. Our findings are robust due to the pooled results after combining all the studies’ data. As expected from initial studies in China, COVID-19 patients presented predominantly with cough and fever, as well as headache, diarrhea, and fatigue, among other clinical features [46]. This was consistently found in many of the included studies [18, 47]. Fever frequency is similar in other β-CoV associated infections such as SARS and MERS, but studies showed that the cough frequency is higher in SARS and COVID-19 than MERS (< 50%) [48, 49]. In SARS and MERS, diarrhea is reported in about a quarter of patients, but our data shows that only 6 percent of COVID-19 patients present with diarrhea (Table 4). Our data also suggest that about 11 percent of patients are presented with headache as a symptom. Unlike SARS, which is well-characterized in the two-stage clinical course of the disease [50], COVID-19, still needs further definition to identify the Disease process. View this table: [Table 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/22/2020.04.19.20071456/T4) Table 4. Meta-analysis of clinical manifestations (fixed-effects model). Studies on epidemiological features of COVID -19 showed that about 80 percent of patients are asymptomatic or are presented with mild manifestations [51, 52], but almost all of the patients included in our study had moderate to severe characteristics. It seems that fever and cough are the most common clinical features among moderate to severe patients (Table 4) Studies show different laboratory abnormalities in COVID-19 infected patients, such as hypoalbuminemia or elevated inflammatory markers [53]. However, our data suggest that C-reactive protein is the most elevated factor among infected cases (Table 5). D-dimer, LDH, and procalcitonin are also elevated in patients, which confirmed that measuring inflammatory markers are essential to investigate new cases [54]. Also, seven studies showed lymphopenia and albuminuria as other common laboratory findings. Data from new studies suggest lymphocytopenia or an increase in WBC as prognostic factors in COVID-19 patients. Studies on the SARS outbreak in 2003 indicate that lymphopenia, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia, elevated levels of LDH, alanine transaminase (ALT), AST, and creatine-kinase are most affected laboratory findings [55]. View this table: [Table 5.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/22/2020.04.19.20071456/T5) Table 5. A meta-analysis of laboratory outcomes (fixed-effects model) Nevertheless, not significantly seen in COVID. SARS-Cov-2 can affect the liver and other organs [56]. AST and ALT are normal in most cases, but impaired liver function tests are associated with poor prognosis and higher mortality rates [34, 57]. Coagulation function tests (such as INR) are affected in the prognosis of this infection [58]. Lymphopenia in COVID -19 infected patients suggest that this virus might act on lymphocytes (mainly T cells), but some studies suggest that B cells are also affected [59, 53]. Ct-scan is one of the most useful methods of respiratory disease diagnosis. CT scans high sensitivity and availability make it one of the most common tests for lung disease screening [60, 61]. In COVID-19 patients, different results could present in the early stages of infection [62, 63]; even some studies demonstrate that CT scans sensitivity is higher than rRT-PCR [6]. Our data shows that 92% of rRT-PCR confirmed cases had abnormal CT-scan results, which suggest CT-scan as a reliable method. As seen in Table 6, CT-scan meta-analysis outcomes are performed in fixed and random effect analyses. Our meta-analysis on 15 studies showed that Ground-Glass Opacification (GGO) and peripheral distribution is seen on 60% of and 64% of patients, respectively. 58% of the patients had Bilateral Involvements, which is contributed to poor prognosis. View this table: [Table 6.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/22/2020.04.19.20071456/T6) Table 6. Meta-analysis of CT-scan outcomes (random-effects model and fixed-effect model) CT-scan is useful in monitoring the treatment, and it is crucial in classifying patients and identifying who should be treated with aggressive treatments [11]. Other findings such as consolidation or reverse halo or atoll sign are reported in some studies [64], which were not included in our analysis. ## Limitations This review has several limitations. Few studies are available on COVID-19, and most of them are from China. Many countries such as Italy, the United States, and Iran reported several new SARS-Cov-2 positive patients, but data about clinical characteristics or laboratory findings are limited. By publishing more studies worldwide, researchers are going to get a more comprehensive understanding of COVID19. Patients, detailed information, especially in clinical outcomes, was unavailable in most studies at the time of analysis. ## Conclusions COVID-19 presents in the majority of cases with fever and cough. Laboratory findings such as elevated inflammatory markers can help to diagnose. Other factors, such as AST, ALT, or INR, are associated with the prognosis of the patients. 92% of the RT-PCR confirmed that patients have abnormalities in CT-scan most frequently GGO. Additional research with higher sample sizes is needed in order to describe the patient’s characteristics more precisely. ## Data Availability - ## Authors contribution HH: Managed the group and participated in preparing the manuscript. SS: participated in meta-analysis. SM & NT: participated in the systematic search substantially drafted the manuscript. PM revised the manuscript critically. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript. ## Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interest regarding the publication of this paper. ## Abbreviations COVID-19 : Corona Virus Disease of 2019 rRT-PCR : real-time Reverse Transcription–Polymerase Chain Reaction CT-scan : Computed Tomography scan CI : Confidence Intervals CRP : C-Reactive Protein RNA : Ribonucleic Acid SARS-CoV-2 : Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus #2 PRISMA : protocol based on transparent reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analysis CBC : Complete Blood Count CMA : comprehensive meta-analysis GGO : ground-glass opacities β-CoV : beta coronavirus MERS : Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome SARS : Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome LDH : Lactate Dehydrogenase WBC : White Blood Cell ALT : Alanine Transaminase AST : Aspartate Aminotransferase INR : International Normalized Ratio. * Received April 19, 2020. * Revision received April 19, 2020. * Accepted April 22, 2020. * © 2020, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.Zhu, N., et al., A novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China, 2019. New England Journal of Medicine, 2020. 2. 2.Wang, C., et al., A novel coronavirus outbreak of global health concern. The Lancet, 2020. 395(10223): p. 470–473. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(20)&link_type=DOI) 3. 3.Lee, P.-I. and P.-R. Hsueh, Emerging threats from zoonotic coronaviruses-from SARS and MERS to 2019-nCoV. Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection, 2020. 4. 4.Chen, H., et al., Clinical characteristics and intrauterine vertical transmission potential of COVID-19 infection in nine pregnant women: a retrospective review of medical records. The Lancet, 2020. 395(10226): p. 809–815. 5. 5.Bernheim, A., et al., Chest CT findings in coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19): relationship to duration of infection. Radiology, 2020: p. 200463. 6. 6.Fang, Y., et al., Sensitivity of chest CT for COVID-19: comparison to RT-PCR. Radiology, 2020: p. 200432. 7. 7.Organization, W.H., Laboratory testing for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in suspected human cases: interim guidance, 2 March 2020. 2020, World Health Organization. 8. 8.Li, Y., et al., Characteristics of peripheral blood leukocyte differential counts in patients with COVID-19. Zhonghua nei ke za zhi, 2020. 59: p. E003. 9. 9.Luo, X., et al., Prognostic value of C-reactive protein in patients with COVID-19. medRxiv, 2020. 10. 10.Hozo, S.P., B. Djulbegovic, and I. Hozo, Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC medical research methodology, 2005. 5(1): p. 13. 11. 11.Zhao, W., et al., Relation between chest CT findings and clinical conditions of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pneumonia: a multicenter study. American Journal of Roentgenology, 2020: p. 1–6. 12. 12.Shi, H., et al., Radiological findings from 81 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 2020. 13. 13.Pan, Y., et al., Initial CT findings and temporal changes in patients with the novel coronavirus pneumonia (2019-nCoV): a study of 63 patients in Wuhan, China. European radiology, 2020: p. 1–4. 14. 14.Xu, X., et al., Imaging and clinical features of patients with 2019 novel coronavirus SARS- CoV-2. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 2020: p. 1–6. 15. 15.Zhang, S., et al., High-resolution CT features of 17 cases of Corona Virus Disease 2019 in Sichuan province, China. European Respiratory Journal, 2020. 16. 16.Chen, N., et al., Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study. The Lancet, 2020. 395(10223): p. 507–513. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/s01406736(20)30211-7&link_type=DOI) 17. 17.HuangCL, W., ClinicalfealJ tures of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan. China, 2020. 395(10223): p. 497–506. 18. 18.Wu, J., et al., Clinical characteristics of imported cases of COVID-19 in Jiangsu province: a multicenter descriptive study. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2020. 19. 19.Guan, W.-j., et al., Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 in China. New England Journal of Medicine, 2020. 20. 20.Wang, D., et al., Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus–infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China. Jama, 2020. 21. 21.Yang, W., et al., Clinical characteristics and imaging manifestations of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19): A multi-center study in Wenzhou city, Zhejiang, China. Journal of Infection, 2020. 22. 22.Xu, Y.-H., et al., Clinical and computed tomographic imaging features of Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia caused by SARS-CoV-2. Journal of Infection, 2020. 23. 23.Wu, J., et al., Chest CT findings in patients with corona virus disease 2019 and its relationship with clinical features. Invest Radiol. [https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI](https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI), 2020. 670. 24. 24.Li, K., et al., The Clinical and Chest CT Features Associated with Severe and Critical COVID-19 Pneumonia. Investigative radiology, 2020. 25. 25.Xia, W., et al., Clinical and CT features in pediatric patients with COVIDlJ19 infection: Different points from adults. Pediatric pulmonology, 2020. 26. 26.Zhang, J.j., et al., Clinical characteristics of 140 patients infected by SARSlJCoVlJ2 in Wuhan, China. Allergy, 2020. 27. 27.Zhou, S., et al., CT Features of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pneumonia in 62 Patients in Wuhan, China. American Journal of Roentgenology, 2020: p. 1–8. 28. 28.Wang, J., et al., Dynamic changes of chest CT imaging in patients with corona virus disease- 19 (COVID-19). Zhejiang da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban= Journal of Zhejiang University. Medical sciences, 2020. 49(1): p. . 29. 29.Yoon, S.H., et al., Chest Radiographic and CT Findings of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): Analysis of Nine Patients Treated in Korea. Korean Journal of Radiology, 2020. 21(4): p. 494–500. 30. 30.Qian, G.-Q., et al., Epidemiologic and Clinical Characteristics of 91 Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 in Zhejiang, China: A retrospective, multi-centre case series. medRxiv, 2020. 31. 31.Liu, Y., et al., Clinical Characteristics and Progression of 2019 Novel Coronavirus-Infected Patients Concurrent Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. medRxiv, 2020. 32. 32.Chen, G., et al., Clinical and immunologic features in severe and moderate forms of Coronavirus Disease 2019. medRxiv, 2020. 33. 33.Young, B.E., et al., Epidemiologic features and clinical course of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Singapore. Jama, 2020. 34. 34.Fan, Z., et al., Clinical Features of COVID-19-Related Liver Damage. Available at SSRN 3546077, 2020. 35. 35.Deng, S.-Q. and H.-J. Peng, Characteristics of and public health responses to the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak in China. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2020. 9(2): p. 575. 36. 36.Huang, Y., et al., Clinical characteristics of laboratory confirmed positive cases of SARS- CoV-2 infection in Wuhan, China: A retrospective single center analysis. Diabetes, 2020. 4: p. 11.8. 37. 37.Kui, L., et al., Clinical characteristics of novel coronavirus cases in tertiary hospitals in Hubei Province. Chinese medical journal, 2020. 38. 38.Tian, S., et al., Characteristics of COVID-19 infection in Beijing. Journal of Infection, 2020. 39. 39.Xiao-Wei, X., et al., Clinical findings in a group of patients infected with the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-Cov-2) outside of Wuhan, China: retrospective case series. BMJ: British Medical Journal (Online), 2020. 368. 40. 40.WHO. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report – 69. 2020; Available from: [https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200329-sitrep-69-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=8d6620fa_2](https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200329-sitrep-69-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=8d6620fa_2). 41. 41.Gorbalenya, A.E., Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus–The species and its viruses, a statement of the Coronavirus Study Group. BioRxiv, 2020. 42. 42.Heymann, D.L. and N. Shindo, COVID-19: what is next for public health? The Lancet, 2020. 395(10224): p. 542–545. 43. 43.Mahase, E., Coronavirus: covid-19 has killed more people than SARS and MERS combined, despite lower case fatality rate. 2020, British Medical Journal Publishing Group. 44. 44.Wu, Z. and J.M. McGoogan, Characteristics of and important lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: summary of a report of 72 314 cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Jama, 2020. 45. 45.Bai, Y., et al., Presumed asymptomatic carrier transmission of COVID-19. Jama, 2020. 46. 46.Huang, C., et al., Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. The Lancet, 2020. 395(10223): p. 497–506. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F04%2F22%2F2020.04.19.20071456.atom) 47. 47.Jiang, F., et al., Review of the clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID- 19). Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2020: p. 1–5. 48. 48.Meo, S., et al., Novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV: prevalence, biological and clinical characteristics comparison with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci, 2020. 24: p. 2012–2019. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access\_num=10.26355/eurrev_202002_20379&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F04%2F22%2F2020.04.19.20071456.atom) 49. 49.Guarner, J., Three Emerging Coronaviruses in Two Decades: The Story of SARS, MERS, and Now COVID-19. 2020, Oxford University Press US. 50. 50.Wang, J.-T., et al., Clinical manifestations, laboratory findings, and treatment outcomes of SARS patients. Emerging infectious diseases, 2004. 10(5): p. 818. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3201/eid1005.030640&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15200814&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F04%2F22%2F2020.04.19.20071456.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000221233500008&link_type=ISI) 51. 51.Baud, D., et al., Real estimates of mortality following COVID-19 infection. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 2020. 52. 52.Yu, H., et al., Data-driven discovery of clinical routes for severity detection in COVID-19 pediatric cases. medRxiv, 2020. 53. 53.Tan, L., et al., Lymphopenia predicts disease severity of COVID-19: a descriptive and predictive study. medRxiv, 2020. 54. 54.Gong, J., et al., Correlation Analysis Between Disease Severity and Inflammation-related Parameters in Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia. medRxiv, 2020. 55. 55.Liang, G., et al., Laboratory diagnosis of four recent sporadic cases of community-acquired SARS, Guangdong Province, China. Emerging infectious diseases, 2004. 10(10): p. 1774. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3201/eid1010.040445&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15504263&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F04%2F22%2F2020.04.19.20071456.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000224376200009&link_type=ISI) 56. 56.Zhang, C., L. Shi, and F.-S. Wang, Liver injury in COVID-19: management and challenges. The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 2020. 57. 57.Yao, N., et al., Clinical characteristics and influencing factors of patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia combined with liver injury in Shaanxi region. Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi= Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi= Chinese journal of hepatology, 2020. 28: p. E003. 58. 58.Li, T., H. Lu, and W. Zhang, Clinical observation and management of COVID-19 patients. Emerging Microbes & Infections, 2020. 9(1): p. 687–690. 59. 59.Qin, C., et al., Dysregulation of immune response in patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China. China (February 17, 2020), 2020. 60. 60.Mathieson, J., et al., Chronic diffuse infiltrative lung disease: comparison of diagnostic accuracy of CT and chest radiography. Radiology, 1989. 171(1): p. 111–116. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1148/radiology.171.1.2928513&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=2928513&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F04%2F22%2F2020.04.19.20071456.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1989T800600023&link_type=ISI) 61. 61.Tan, R.T., et al., Utility of CT scan evaluation for predicting pulmonary hypertension in patients with parenchymal lung disease. Chest, 1998. 113(5): p. 1250–1256. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1378/chest.113.5.1250&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9596302&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F04%2F22%2F2020.04.19.20071456.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000073591500022&link_type=ISI) 62. 62.Li, M., et al., Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): Spectrum of CT Findings and Temporal Progression of the Disease. Academic Radiology, 2020. 63. 63.Ye, Z., et al., Chest CT manifestations of new coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a pictorial review. European Radiology, 2020: p. 1–9. 64. 64.Li, X., et al., COVID-19 infection presenting with CT Halo sign. Radiology: Cardiothoracic Imaging, 2020. 2(1): p. e200026. [1]: /embed/graphic-8.gif