Update on the limited sensitivity of computed tomography relative to RT-PCR for COVID-19: a systematic review.

IF 0.9 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Polish Journal of Radiology Pub Date : 2022-07-12 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.5114/pjr.2022.118238
Clarissa Martin, Nina Cheng, Bryant Chang, Namrata Arya, Michael Joseph Diaz, Keldon Lin, Muhammad Umair, Joseph Waller, Travis Henry
{"title":"Update on the limited sensitivity of computed tomography relative to RT-PCR for COVID-19: a systematic review.","authors":"Clarissa Martin, Nina Cheng, Bryant Chang, Namrata Arya, Michael Joseph Diaz, Keldon Lin, Muhammad Umair, Joseph Waller, Travis Henry","doi":"10.5114/pjr.2022.118238","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The global and ongoing COVID-19 outbreak has compelled the need for timely and reliable methods of detection for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has been widely accepted as a reference standard for COVID-19 diagnosis, several early studies have suggested the superior sensitivity of computed tomography (CT) in identifying SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a previous systematic review, we stratified studies based on risk for bias to evaluate the true sensitivity of CT for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study revisits our prior analysis, incorporating more current data to assess the sensitivity of CT for COVID-19.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>The PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched for relevant articles published between 1 January 2020, and 25 April 2021. Exclusion criteria included lack of specification regarding whether the study cohort was adult or paediatric, whether patients were symptomatic or asymptomatic, and not identifying the source of RT-PCR specimens. Ultimately, 62 studies were included for systematic review and were subsequently stratified by risk for bias using the QUADAS-2 quality assessment tool. Sensitivity data were extracted for random effects meta-analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average sensitivity for COVID-19 reported by the high-risk-of-bias studies was 68% [CI: 58, 80; range: 38-96%] for RT-PCR and 91% [CI: 87, 96; range: 47-100%] for CT. The average sensitivity reported by the low-risk-of-bias studies was 84% [CI: 0.75, 0.94; range: 70-97%] for RT-PCR and 78% [CI: 71, 0.86; range: 44-92%] for CT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>On average, the high-risk-of bias studies underestimated the sensitivity of RT-PCR and overestimated the sensitivity of CT for COVID-19. Given the incorporation of recently published low-risk-of-bias articles, the sensitivities according to low-risk-of-bias studies for both RT-PCR and CT were higher than previously reported.</p>","PeriodicalId":47128,"journal":{"name":"Polish Journal of Radiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/37/d1/PJR-87-47518.PMC9373863.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Polish Journal of Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/pjr.2022.118238","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The global and ongoing COVID-19 outbreak has compelled the need for timely and reliable methods of detection for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has been widely accepted as a reference standard for COVID-19 diagnosis, several early studies have suggested the superior sensitivity of computed tomography (CT) in identifying SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a previous systematic review, we stratified studies based on risk for bias to evaluate the true sensitivity of CT for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study revisits our prior analysis, incorporating more current data to assess the sensitivity of CT for COVID-19.

Material and methods: The PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched for relevant articles published between 1 January 2020, and 25 April 2021. Exclusion criteria included lack of specification regarding whether the study cohort was adult or paediatric, whether patients were symptomatic or asymptomatic, and not identifying the source of RT-PCR specimens. Ultimately, 62 studies were included for systematic review and were subsequently stratified by risk for bias using the QUADAS-2 quality assessment tool. Sensitivity data were extracted for random effects meta-analyses.

Results: The average sensitivity for COVID-19 reported by the high-risk-of-bias studies was 68% [CI: 58, 80; range: 38-96%] for RT-PCR and 91% [CI: 87, 96; range: 47-100%] for CT. The average sensitivity reported by the low-risk-of-bias studies was 84% [CI: 0.75, 0.94; range: 70-97%] for RT-PCR and 78% [CI: 71, 0.86; range: 44-92%] for CT.

Conclusions: On average, the high-risk-of bias studies underestimated the sensitivity of RT-PCR and overestimated the sensitivity of CT for COVID-19. Given the incorporation of recently published low-risk-of-bias articles, the sensitivities according to low-risk-of-bias studies for both RT-PCR and CT were higher than previously reported.

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
计算机断层扫描相对于 RT-PCR 对 COVID-19 的有限敏感性的最新进展:系统综述。
目的:COVID-19疫情在全球范围内持续爆发,迫使人们需要及时、可靠的方法来检测SARS-CoV-2感染。尽管反转录聚合酶链反应(RT-PCR)已被广泛接受为诊断 COVID-19 的参考标准,但一些早期研究表明,计算机断层扫描(CT)在识别 SARS-CoV-2 感染方面具有更高的灵敏度。在之前的系统综述中,我们根据偏倚风险对研究进行了分层,以评估 CT 检测 SARS-CoV-2 感染的真实灵敏度。本研究重新回顾了我们之前的分析,纳入了更多最新数据,以评估 CT 对 COVID-19 的敏感性:在 PubMed 和 Google Scholar 数据库中搜索了 2020 年 1 月 1 日至 2021 年 4 月 25 日期间发表的相关文章。排除标准包括未说明研究队列是成人还是儿童、患者是有症状还是无症状,以及未确定 RT-PCR 标本的来源。最终,62 项研究被纳入系统性综述,随后使用 QUADAS-2 质量评估工具按偏倚风险进行了分层。随机效应荟萃分析提取了灵敏度数据:高偏倚风险研究报告的 COVID-19 平均灵敏度为:RT-PCR 68% [CI:58,80;范围:38-96%],CT 91% [CI:87,96;范围:47-100%]。低偏倚风险研究报告的平均灵敏度为:RT-PCR 为 84% [CI:0.75,0.94;范围:70-97%],CT 为 78% [CI:71,0.86;范围:44-92%]:平均而言,高偏倚风险研究低估了RT-PCR对COVID-19的敏感性,高估了CT对COVID-19的敏感性。考虑到最近发表的低偏倚风险文章,根据低偏倚风险研究得出的RT-PCR和CT灵敏度均高于之前的报告。
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
Polish Journal of Radiology
Polish Journal of Radiology RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Lung ultrasound in a nutshell. Lines, signs, some applications, and misconceptions from a radiologist's point of view. Ablation of pulmonary neoplasms: review of literature and future perspectives. Bone marrow lesions of the femoral head: can radiomics distinguish whether it is reversible? Summary of radiation dose management and optimization: comparison of radiation protection measures between Poland and other countries. Diagnosis and treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis - a comprehensive overview.
×
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