Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,569

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bacterial co-infection and secondary infection in patients with COVID-19: a living rapid review and meta-analysis

Open access
Langford, Bradley J., So, Miranda, Raybardhan, Sumit, Leung, Valerie, Westwood, Duncan, MacFadden, Derek R., Soucy, Jean-Paul R., Daneman, Nick·2020·Clinical Microbiology and Infection

Abstract

Background Bacterial co-pathogens are commonly identified in viral respiratory infections and are important causes of morbidity and mortality. The prevalence of bacterial infection in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 is not well understood. Aims To determine the prevalence of bacterial co-infection (at presentation) and secondary infection (after presentation) in patients with COVID-19. Sources We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, OVID Epub and EMBASE databases for English language literature from 2019 to April 16, 2020. Studies were included if they (a) evaluated patients with confirmed COVID-19 and (b) reported the prevalence of acute bacterial infection. Content Data were extracted by a single reviewer and cross-checked by a second reviewer. The main outcome was the proportion of COVID-19 patients with an acute bacterial infection. Any bacteria detected from non-respiratory-tract or non-bloodstream sources were excluded. Of 1308 studies screened, 24 were eligible and included in the rapid review representing 3338 patients with COVID-19 evaluated for acute bacterial infection. In the meta-analysis, bacterial co-infection (estimated on presentation) was identified in 3.5% of patients (95%CI 0.4–6.7%) and secondary bacterial infection in 14.3% of patients (95%CI 9.6–18.9%). The overall proportion of COVID-19 patients with bacterial infection was 6.9% (95%CI 4.3–9.5%). Bacterial infection was more common in critically ill patients (8.1%, 95%CI 2.3–13.8%). The majority of patients with COVID-19 received antibiotics (71.9%, 95%CI 56.1 to 87.7%). Implications Bacterial co-infection is relatively infrequent in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The majority of these patients may not require empirical antibacterial treatment.

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 · 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.07.016

Cites

15 of 15 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 15 references

Cited by

See all 1,569

Metadata

Authors
Langford, B. J., So, M., Raybardhan, S., Leung, V., Westwood, D., MacFadden, D. R., Soucy, J.-P. R., & Daneman, N.
Venue
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-12
Volume
26
Issue
12
Pages
1622-1629
ISSN
1198-743X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3043975336
Cited by
1,569
References
15
FWCI
36.73
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: Bacterial co-infection and secondary infection in patients with COVID-19: a living rapid review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.cmi.2020.07.016
The paper
Langford, B. J., So, M., Raybardhan, S., Leung, V., Westwood, D., MacFadden, D. R., Soucy, J.-P. R., & Daneman, N. (2020). Bacterial co-infection and secondary infection in patients with COVID-19: a living rapid review and meta-analysis. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2020.07.016

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.