Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 197

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinical characteristics of 54 medical staff with COVID‐19: A retrospective study in a single center in Wuhan, China

Open access
Chu, Jiaojiao, Yang, Nan, Wei, Yanqiu, Yue, Huihui, Zhang, Fengqin, Zhao, Jianping, He, Li, Sheng, Gaohong, Chen, Peng, Li, Gang, Wu, Sisi, Zhang, Bo, Zhang, Shu, Wang, Congyi, Miao, Xiaoping, Li, Juan, Liu, Wenhua, Zhang, Huilan·2020·Journal of Medical Virology

Abstract

In December 2019, an outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐Cov‐2) infection occurred in Wuhan, and rapidly spread to worldwide, which has attracted many people's concerns about the patients. However, studies on the infection status of medical personnel is still lacking. A total of 54 cases of SARS‐Cov‐2 infected medical staff from Tongji Hospital between 7 January and 11 February 2020 were analyzed in this retrospective study. Clinical and epidemiological characteristics were compared between different groups by statistical method. From 7 January to 11 February 2020, 54 medical staff of Tongji Hospital were hospitalized due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Most of them were from other clinical departments (72.2%) rather than emergency department (3.7%) or medical technology departments (18.5%). Among the 54 patients with COVID‐19, the distribution of age had a significant difference between non‐severe type and severe/critical cases (median age: 47 years vs 38 years; P = .0015). However, there was no statistical difference in terms of gender distribution and the first symptoms between theses two groups. Furthermore, we observed that the lesion regions in SARS‐Cov‐2 infected lungs with severe‐/critical‐type of medical staff were more likely to exhibit lesions in the right upper lobe (31.7% vs 0%; P = .028) and right lung (61% vs 18.2%; P = .012). Based on our findings with medical staff infection data, we suggest training for all hospital staff to prevent infection and preparation of sufficient protection and disinfection materials.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jmv.25793

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 197

Metadata

Authors
Chu, J., Yang, N., Wei, Y., Yue, H., Zhang, F., Zhao, J., He, L., Sheng, G., Chen, P., Li, G., Wu, S., Zhang, B., Zhang, S., Wang, C., Miao, X., Li, J., Liu, W., & Zhang, H.
Venue
Journal of Medical Virology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-04-06
Volume
92
Issue
7
Pages
807-813
ISSN
  • 0146-6615 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-9071
OpenAlex
W3014034285
Cited by
197
References
3
FWCI
5.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clinical characteristics of 54 medical staff with COVID‐19: A retrospective study in a single center in Wuhan, China. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jmv.25793
The paper
Chu, J., Yang, N., Wei, Y., Yue, H., Zhang, F., Zhao, J., He, L., Sheng, G., Chen, P., Li, G., Wu, S., Zhang, B., Zhang, S., Wang, C., Miao, X., Li, J., Liu, W., & Zhang, H. (2020). Clinical characteristics of 54 medical staff with COVID‐19: A retrospective study in a single center in Wuhan, China. Journal of Medical Virology. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25793

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.