You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 82, Issue 2
  • Correspondence on ‘prevalence and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with autoimmune diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis’

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Correspondence
Correspondence on ‘prevalence and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with autoimmune diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis’
  1. Jiyuan Shi1,
  2. Ya Gao1,
  3. Lili Zhang2,
  4. Yang Zhao2,
  5. Jianguo Xu1,
  6. Jinhui Tian1
  1. 1 Evidence-Based Medicine Center, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
  2. 2 School of nursing, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
  1. Correspondence to Professor Jinhui Tian, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China; 15038059737{at}163.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219377

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We read with great interest the article by Akiyama et al,1 which evaluated the prevalence and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with autoimmune diseases. This important work showed that patients with autoimmune diseases had an increased risk of COVID-19, primarily attributed to glucocorticoid use. However, several issues that may affect the results should be noted.

    First, it was unclear what type of studies this study included, we observed that the expression of ‘observational studies and case–control studies’ has been mentioned many times, but as far as we know, case–controls belongs to the category of observational studies. We hope that authors can clarify the criteria for inclusion of study types. For questions of prevalence, cross-sectional studies using probabilistic random samples conducted in the relevant geographical setting or location are the most appropriate study design, whereas questions of incidence are best answered in cohort studies.2 Distinguishing between different research designs is not only helpful for authors to choose the correct risk of bias …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors JS, YG, YZ, JX and JT formulated the manuscript first draft. JT and LZ read the manuscript critically.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles