The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Routine blood tests as a potential diagnostic tool for COVID-19
Open accessAbstract
Objectives: The outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to date, the epidemic has gradually spread to 209 countries worldwide with more than 1.5 million infected people and 100,000 deaths. Amplification of viral RNA by rRT-PCR serves as the gold standard for confirmation of infection, yet it needs a long turnaround time (3–4 h to generate results) and shows false-negative rates as large as 15%–20%. In addition, the need of certified laboratories, expensive equipment and trained personnel led many countries to limit the rRT-PCR tests only to individuals with pronounced respiratory syndrome symptoms. Thus, there is a need for alternative, less expensive and more accessible tests. Methods: We analyzed the plasma levels of white blood cells (WBCs), platelets, C-reactive protein (CRP), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), γ-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT), alkaline phosphatase and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) of 207 patients who, after being admitted to the emergency room of the San Raffaele Hospital (Milan, Italy) with COVID-19 symptoms, were rRT-PCR tested. Of them, 105 tested positive, whereas 102 tested negative. Results: Statistically significant differences were observed for WBC, CRP, AST, ALT and LDH. Empirical thresholds for AST and LDH allowed the identification of 70% of either COVID-19-positive or -negative patients on the basis of routine blood test results. Conclusions: Combining appropriate cutoffs for certain hematological parameters could help in identifying false-positive/negative rRT-PCR tests. Blood test analysis might be used as an alternative to rRT-PCR for identifying COVID-19-positive patients in those countries which suffer from a large shortage of rRT-PCR reagents and/or specialized laboratory.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Xie, X., Zhong, Z., Zhao, W., Zheng, C., Wang, F., & Liu, J. (2020) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2020200343 · Cited by 1,960
Cited by
The role of biomarkers in diagnosis of COVID-19 – A systematic review
Kermali, M., Khalsa, R. K., Pillai, K., Ismail, Z., & Harky, A. (2020) · Life Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.lfs.2020.117788 · Cited by 687
Cabitza, F., Campagner, A., Soares, F., García de Guadiana-Romualdo, L., Challa, F., Sulejmani, A., Seghezzi, M., & Carobene, A. (2021) · Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine · doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2021.106288 · Cited by 284
Routine laboratory testing to determine if a patient has COVID-19
Stegeman, I., Ochodo, E. A., Guleid, F., Holtman, G. A., Yang, B., Davenport, C., Deeks, J. J., Dinnes, J., Dittrich, S., Emperador, D., et al. (2020) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd013787 · Cited by 76
Metadata
- Authors
- Ferrari, D., Motta, A., Strollo, M., Banfi, G., & Locatelli, M.
- Venue
- Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2020-04-16
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1095-1099
- ISSN
- 1434-6621 (ISSN-L)
- 1437-4331
- OpenAlex
- W3016384104
- Cited by
- 273
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.39
- 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: Routine blood tests as a potential diagnostic tool for COVID-19. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1515/cclm-2020-0398
- The paper
- Ferrari, D., Motta, A., Strollo, M., Banfi, G., & Locatelli, M. (2020). Routine blood tests as a potential diagnostic tool for COVID-19. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM). https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2020-0398
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.