Back

COVID-19 presenting as anosmia and dysgeusia in New York City emergency departments, March - April, 2020

Wang, T. Z.; Sell, J.; Weiss, D.; Lall, R.

2020-07-07 infectious diseases
10.1101/2020.07.06.20147751 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundIncreasing evidence has been emerging of anosmia and dysgeusia as frequently reported symptoms in COVID-19. Improving our understanding of these presenting symptoms may facilitate the prompt recognition of the disease in emergency departments and prevent further transmission. MethodsWe examined a cross-sectional cohort using New York City emergency department syndromic surveillance data for March and April 2020. Emergency department visits for anosmia and/or dysgeusia were identified and subsequently matched to the Electronic Clinical Laboratory Reporting System to determine testing results for SARS-CoV-2. ResultsOf the 683 patients with anosmia and/or dysgeusia included, SARS-CoV-2 testing was performed for 232 (34%) and 168 (72%) were found to be positive. Median age of all patients presenting with anosmia and/or dysgeusia symptoms was 38, and 54% were female. Anosmia and/or dysgeusia was the sole complaint of 158 (23%) patients, of whom 35 were tested for SARS-CoV-2 and 23 (66%) were positive. While the remaining patients presented with at least one other symptom, nearly half of all patients (n=334, 49%) and more than a third of those who tested positive (n=62, 37%) did not have any of the CDC-established symptoms used for screening of COVID-19 such as fever, cough, shortness of breath, or sore throat. Conclusions and RelevanceAnosmia and/or dysgeusia have been frequent complaints among patients presenting to emergency departments during the COVID-19 pandemic, and, while only a small proportion of patients ultimately underwent testing for SARS-CoV-19, the majority of patients tested have been positive. Anosmia and dysgeusia likely represent underrecognized symptoms of COVID-19 but may have important future implications in disease diagnosis and surveillance.

Matching journals

The top 15 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.