Chest CT versus RT-PCR for the detection of COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.

JRSM Open Pub Date : 2021-05-15 eCollection Date: 2021-05-01 DOI:10.1177/20542704211011837
Mohammad Karam, Sulaiman Althuwaikh, Mohammad Alazemi, Ahmad Abul, Amrit Hayre, Abdulmalik Alsaif, Gavin Barlow
{"title":"Chest CT versus RT-PCR for the detection of COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.","authors":"Mohammad Karam, Sulaiman Althuwaikh, Mohammad Alazemi, Ahmad Abul, Amrit Hayre, Abdulmalik Alsaif, Gavin Barlow","doi":"10.1177/20542704211011837","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the performance of chest computed tomography (CT) scan versus reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as the reference standard in the initial diagnostic assessment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. A search of electronic information was conducted using the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Studies that compared the diagnostic performance within the same patient cohort of chest CT scan versus RT-PCR in COVID-19 suspected patients.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Thirteen non-randomised studies enrolling 4092 patients were identified.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were primary outcome measures. Secondary outcomes included other test performance characteristics and discrepant findings between both investigations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Chest CT had a median sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 0.91 (range 0.82-0.98), 0.775 (0.25-1.00) and 0.87 (0.68-0.99), respectively, with RT-PCR as the reference. Importantly, early small, China-based studies tended to favour chest CT versus later larger, non-China studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A relatively high false positive rate can be expected with chest CT. It is possible it may still be useful to provide circumstantial evidence, however, in some patients with a suspicious clinical presentation of COVID-19 and negative initial Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 RT-PCR tests, but more evidence is required in this context. In acute cardiorespiratory presentations, negative CT scan and RT-PCR tests is likely to be reassuring.</p>","PeriodicalId":17674,"journal":{"name":"JRSM Open","volume":"12 5","pages":"20542704211011837"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/20542704211011837","citationCount":"22","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JRSM Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20542704211011837","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the performance of chest computed tomography (CT) scan versus reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as the reference standard in the initial diagnostic assessment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.

Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. A search of electronic information was conducted using the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

Setting: Studies that compared the diagnostic performance within the same patient cohort of chest CT scan versus RT-PCR in COVID-19 suspected patients.

Participants: Thirteen non-randomised studies enrolling 4092 patients were identified.

Main outcome measures: Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were primary outcome measures. Secondary outcomes included other test performance characteristics and discrepant findings between both investigations.

Results: Chest CT had a median sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 0.91 (range 0.82-0.98), 0.775 (0.25-1.00) and 0.87 (0.68-0.99), respectively, with RT-PCR as the reference. Importantly, early small, China-based studies tended to favour chest CT versus later larger, non-China studies.

Conclusions: A relatively high false positive rate can be expected with chest CT. It is possible it may still be useful to provide circumstantial evidence, however, in some patients with a suspicious clinical presentation of COVID-19 and negative initial Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 RT-PCR tests, but more evidence is required in this context. In acute cardiorespiratory presentations, negative CT scan and RT-PCR tests is likely to be reassuring.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
胸部CT与RT-PCR检测COVID-19:比较研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析
目的:比较胸部计算机断层扫描(CT)与逆转录聚合酶链反应(RT-PCR)作为参考标准在冠状病毒病2019 (COVID-19)患者初始诊断评估中的表现。设计:按照系统评价和元分析指南的首选报告项目进行系统评价和元分析。使用以下数据库检索电子信息:MEDLINE、EMBASE、EMCARE、CINAHL和Cochrane中央对照试验登记处。背景:比较同一患者队列胸部CT扫描与RT-PCR在COVID-19疑似患者中的诊断性能的研究。参与者:13项非随机研究纳入4092例患者。主要结局指标:敏感性、特异性和准确性是主要结局指标。次要结果包括其他测试性能特征和两项调查之间的差异结果。结果:以RT-PCR为参照,胸部CT的中位灵敏度、特异度和准确度分别为0.91(0.82 ~ 0.98)、0.775(0.25 ~ 1.00)和0.87(0.68 ~ 0.99)。重要的是,早期基于中国的小型研究倾向于胸部CT,而不是后来的大型非中国研究。结论:胸部CT有较高的假阳性率。然而,对于一些临床表现可疑的COVID-19患者和初始严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2型RT-PCR检测阴性的患者,提供间接证据可能仍然有用,但在这方面需要更多的证据。在急性心肺症状中,CT扫描和RT-PCR检测阴性可能是令人放心的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: JRSM Open is a peer reviewed online-only journal that follows the open-access publishing model. It is a companion journal to the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. The journal publishes research papers, research letters, clinical and methodological reviews, and case reports. Our aim is to inform practice and policy making in clinical medicine. The journal has an international and multispecialty readership that includes primary care and public health professionals.
期刊最新文献
Providing personalised care for people with tuberculosis: an evaluation of enhanced case management in a UK TB Network 2013 to 2021. Redeployment experiences of healthcare workers in the UK during COVID-19: a cross-sectional analysis from the nationwide UK-REACH study. Surgical reconstruction for spasticity and contracture: An underutilised rehabilitative strategy of adult stroke. Long COVID symptoms and demographic associations: A retrospective case series study using healthcare application data. Racial microaggressions within the UK Healthcare System: a narrative review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1