Mohammad Karam, Sulaiman Althuwaikh, Mohammad Alazemi, Ahmad Abul, Amrit Hayre, Abdulmalik Alsaif, Gavin Barlow
{"title":"胸部CT与RT-PCR检测COVID-19:比较研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析","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":"{\"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}","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}
Chest CT versus RT-PCR for the detection of COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.
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.
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.