Skip to main content
. 2020 Jul 7;2020(7):CD013665. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013665

Sun 2020a.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling Purpose: algorithm development for estimating risk COVID‐19
Design: cross‐sectional, retrospective study
Recruitment: patients presenting at the designated national outbreak screening centre and tertiary care hospital in Singapore for SARS‐CoV‐2 testing. Patients were either self‐referred, referred from primary care facilities, or were at‐risk cases identified by national contact tracing efforts (recruited n = 991)
Sample size: n = 788 (n = 54)
Inclusion criteria: patients presenting to the centre:
  • self‐referred

  • referred from primary care facilities

  • at‐risk cases identified by national contact tracing efforts


Exclusion criteria: PCR results not available at time of data collection ‐ no electronic medical records ‐ unavailable vital sign records
Patient characteristics and setting Facility cases: positive SARS‐CoV2 RT‐PCR test
Facility controls: all SARS‐CoV‐2 RT‐PCR results were negative (minimum 2 test negatives in high‐risk patients, minimum 1 test low‐risk patients)
Country: Singapore
Dates: 26 January 2020‐16 February 2020
Symptoms and severity: 252 (33.2%) symptoms > 5 days at presentation, 75 (9.5%) any comorbidity
  • body temperature

  • heart rate

  • respiratory rate

  • systolic BP

  • diastolic BP

  • cough

  • sputum production

  • shortness of breath

  • rhinnorhoea or nasal congestion

  • sore throat

  • auscultation finding of pneumonia

  • other respiratory symptoms

  • gastrointestinal symptoms


Demographics: median age 34 years (range 7 years‐98 years, IQR 27‐45) (cases median 42 years, range 16‐79; controls 34 years (range 7‐98); M/F: 48.3%/51.7% F (cases M: 88 (88.9%))
Exposure history: contact with a known COVID‐19 case (20.1% (32/54 cases (59.3%)); 126/734 controls (17.2%), contact with travellers from China (22.1%, 15/54 cases (27.8%); 42/734 controls (5.7%)), recent travel history, and visit to hospital in China within 14 days prior to symptom onset (0.8%)
Index tests
  • Body temperature

  • Heart rate

  • Respiratory rate

  • Systolic BP

  • Diastolic BP

  • Cough

  • Sputum production

  • Shortness of breath

  • Rhinnorhea or nasal congestion

  • Sore throat

  • Auscultation finding of pneumonia

  • Other respiratory symptoms

  • GI symptoms

Target condition and reference standard(s)
  • TC: SARS‐CoV‐2 infection

  • RS: SARS‐CoV‐2 2 commercial assays 2‐target (1 assay: Orf1ab and N ‐ other unclear) RT‐PCR

Flow and timing Time interval not specified
Comparative  
Notes  
Methodological quality
Item Authors' judgement Risk of bias Applicability concerns
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? Yes    
Was a case‐control design avoided? No    
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? Yes    
Did the study avoid inappropriate inclusions? Yes    
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?   High risk  
Are there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question?     High
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (All tests)
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? Yes    
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? No    
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?   High risk  
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?     Low concern
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? Yes    
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests? No    
Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?   Low risk  
Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question?     Low concern
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? Unclear    
Did all patients receive the same reference standard? Yes    
Were all patients included in the analysis? Yes    
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?   Low risk