Shiloh
Editor, Senior Moderator
Source: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/11/covid-19-scan-nov-16-2020
COVID-19 Scan for Nov 16, 2020
Lung problems after COVID; Readability of COVID-19 info
Filed Under:
COVID-19
COVID-19 3-month follow-up shows residual lung abnormalities
A 3-month follow-up study of 142 COVID-19 survivors in China showed that 85.9% of patients had abnormalities on computed tomography (CT) chest scans and 52 (36.6%) had chronic and fibrotic changes.
According to the study, published Nov 14 in Open Forum Infectious Diseases, higher CT scores (2.00 vs 0.00) and lower ground-glass opacity (GGO) absorption levels seemed to be associated with more severe COVID-19. Among severe cases of COVID-19, 76.7% displayed higher CT abnormalities vs 37.5% of non-severe cases. GGOs in the lungs were completely absorbed in 77 patients (54.2%) and partially absorbed by 64 (45.1%) in the time from discharge to follow-up. In only one severe case did they increase.
Lung function parameters, on the other hand, did not seem to be affected by the severity of infection. Researchers found abnormal pulmonary function in 6.4% of patients, abnormal small airway function in 6.9%, airway obstruction in 3.5%, and airway restriction.
"The prevalence of pulmonary function abnormality in our study was lower than that in previously studies, which may be attributable to different time of measurement, suggesting that lung function might be continuously improved after discharged [sic] and is unlikely to cause a lifelong impairment," the researchers write, mentioning that improved antiviral treatments could aid with lesion reduction. The researchers also noted a recent study suggesting that COVID-19 survivors with residual chest abnormalities—especially those who were recovering from a severe infection—could progress to pulmonary fibrosis.
Patients were recruited from Jan 11 to Feb 21 from the Third People's Hospital of Shenzhen and tracked until Jun 13.
Nov 14 Open Forum Infect Dis study
Only 17.2% of top COVID-19 webpages universally readable, analysis finds
In a survey of the top 240 webpages relating to COVID-19 across Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States, only 17.2% were considered to be at a universally readable level, reports a recent study published in BMC Public Health.
Results did not vary by geographic region, but they did across webpage sources: Public health organizations and government organizations had the most readable material, whereas digital media sources such as news outlets were significantly less so, according to a synthesis of Flesch Reading Ease Score, the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Score (FKG), the Gunning Fox Index, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook assessments.
"This poor readability level affects understanding of the health information; resulting in poor adherence to hygiene measures, social-distancing measures, and further public health recommendations," the researchers write.
For instance, the FKG—a 10-point scale emphasizing syllables per word—considers anything less than 8 as universally readable. Government and public health organizations had a median score of 8.7, digital media had 9.4, and scientific and educational institutions had 10.4. The remaining, miscellaneous webpages had a median score of 8.6.
Internet searches were conducted Apr 17 using a Google Chrome browser whose prior search history and caches had been erased. The first 20 results (the first page of Google's search results) for the searches "COVID," "COVID-19," and "coronavirus" were examined for each of the nations, categorized by source, and analyzed by computer.
According to the researchers, Google has been overriding its results algorithm since March 2020 by putting health information from respectable sources such as the World Health Organization higher up in its search result rankings. The researchers posit that this could be partially the reason why 53% of the top results were from government and public health organizations. Of the rest, 29% were from digital or social media webpages, 5% were from scientific and educational institutions, 14% were "other," and 0% were peer-reviewed journals or articles.
Nov 13 BMC Public Health study
COVID-19 Scan for Nov 16, 2020
Lung problems after COVID; Readability of COVID-19 info
Filed Under:
COVID-19
COVID-19 3-month follow-up shows residual lung abnormalities
A 3-month follow-up study of 142 COVID-19 survivors in China showed that 85.9% of patients had abnormalities on computed tomography (CT) chest scans and 52 (36.6%) had chronic and fibrotic changes.
According to the study, published Nov 14 in Open Forum Infectious Diseases, higher CT scores (2.00 vs 0.00) and lower ground-glass opacity (GGO) absorption levels seemed to be associated with more severe COVID-19. Among severe cases of COVID-19, 76.7% displayed higher CT abnormalities vs 37.5% of non-severe cases. GGOs in the lungs were completely absorbed in 77 patients (54.2%) and partially absorbed by 64 (45.1%) in the time from discharge to follow-up. In only one severe case did they increase.
Lung function parameters, on the other hand, did not seem to be affected by the severity of infection. Researchers found abnormal pulmonary function in 6.4% of patients, abnormal small airway function in 6.9%, airway obstruction in 3.5%, and airway restriction.
"The prevalence of pulmonary function abnormality in our study was lower than that in previously studies, which may be attributable to different time of measurement, suggesting that lung function might be continuously improved after discharged [sic] and is unlikely to cause a lifelong impairment," the researchers write, mentioning that improved antiviral treatments could aid with lesion reduction. The researchers also noted a recent study suggesting that COVID-19 survivors with residual chest abnormalities—especially those who were recovering from a severe infection—could progress to pulmonary fibrosis.
Patients were recruited from Jan 11 to Feb 21 from the Third People's Hospital of Shenzhen and tracked until Jun 13.
Nov 14 Open Forum Infect Dis study
Only 17.2% of top COVID-19 webpages universally readable, analysis finds
In a survey of the top 240 webpages relating to COVID-19 across Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States, only 17.2% were considered to be at a universally readable level, reports a recent study published in BMC Public Health.
Results did not vary by geographic region, but they did across webpage sources: Public health organizations and government organizations had the most readable material, whereas digital media sources such as news outlets were significantly less so, according to a synthesis of Flesch Reading Ease Score, the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Score (FKG), the Gunning Fox Index, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook assessments.
"This poor readability level affects understanding of the health information; resulting in poor adherence to hygiene measures, social-distancing measures, and further public health recommendations," the researchers write.
For instance, the FKG—a 10-point scale emphasizing syllables per word—considers anything less than 8 as universally readable. Government and public health organizations had a median score of 8.7, digital media had 9.4, and scientific and educational institutions had 10.4. The remaining, miscellaneous webpages had a median score of 8.6.
Internet searches were conducted Apr 17 using a Google Chrome browser whose prior search history and caches had been erased. The first 20 results (the first page of Google's search results) for the searches "COVID," "COVID-19," and "coronavirus" were examined for each of the nations, categorized by source, and analyzed by computer.
According to the researchers, Google has been overriding its results algorithm since March 2020 by putting health information from respectable sources such as the World Health Organization higher up in its search result rankings. The researchers posit that this could be partially the reason why 53% of the top results were from government and public health organizations. Of the rest, 29% were from digital or social media webpages, 5% were from scientific and educational institutions, 14% were "other," and 0% were peer-reviewed journals or articles.
Nov 13 BMC Public Health study