胸部CT能成为新冠肺炎的一线诊断手段吗?横断面研究

H. Çaylak, D. Atasoy, Nazım Çetinkaya, İsmet Can, Rağıp Sarıismailoğlu, M. Atalar
{"title":"胸部CT能成为新冠肺炎的一线诊断手段吗?横断面研究","authors":"H. Çaylak, D. Atasoy, Nazım Çetinkaya, İsmet Can, Rağıp Sarıismailoğlu, M. Atalar","doi":"10.7197/cmj.1164858","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT \nBackground/aim: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, chest computerized tomography (CCT) was shown to be more sensitive than real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) in detecting the disease, especially in regions with high disease prevalence. In this study, we aimed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of chest CT in the diagnosis of COVID-19. \nMaterials and methods: Between 17 March, 2020 and 25 April, 2020, 2170 patients who were admitted to the hospital for any reason and underwent chest CT scanning were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with a pre-diagnosis of COVID-19 and a positive rRT-PCR test, two consecutive negative rRT-PCR tests, or with a first negative rRT-PCR test and a positive follow-up rRT-PCR test were included. The day of the rRT-PCR test for these patients was counted as day “0,” and 200 patients whose CCT was performed within +/- three days were included in the study. \nResults: Of the 200 patients included in the study, 118 were rRT-PCR-positive, and 82 were rRT-PCR-negative. Of the 118 patients with positive rRT-PCR results, 62/118 (52.5%) had positive CCT scans. With the rRT-PCR results as the reference, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CCT in indicating COVID-19 infection were 52.5% (95% CI 43–61%), 67% (95% CI 56–77%), and 58.5% (95% CI 51-65%), respectively. The negative predictive value of CCT in diagnosing COVID-19 was greater for women than for men (p = 0.01). \nConclusions: In regions where the prevalence of COVID-19 is not high, the use of CCT in the diagnosis of the disease is not an alternative to the rRT-PCR test due to its low sensitivity.","PeriodicalId":10750,"journal":{"name":"Cumhuriyet medical journal","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can Chest CT be the first-line diagnostic test in COVID-19? A cross-sectional study\",\"authors\":\"H. Çaylak, D. Atasoy, Nazım Çetinkaya, İsmet Can, Rağıp Sarıismailoğlu, M. Atalar\",\"doi\":\"10.7197/cmj.1164858\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT \\nBackground/aim: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, chest computerized tomography (CCT) was shown to be more sensitive than real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) in detecting the disease, especially in regions with high disease prevalence. In this study, we aimed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of chest CT in the diagnosis of COVID-19. \\nMaterials and methods: Between 17 March, 2020 and 25 April, 2020, 2170 patients who were admitted to the hospital for any reason and underwent chest CT scanning were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with a pre-diagnosis of COVID-19 and a positive rRT-PCR test, two consecutive negative rRT-PCR tests, or with a first negative rRT-PCR test and a positive follow-up rRT-PCR test were included. The day of the rRT-PCR test for these patients was counted as day “0,” and 200 patients whose CCT was performed within +/- three days were included in the study. \\nResults: Of the 200 patients included in the study, 118 were rRT-PCR-positive, and 82 were rRT-PCR-negative. Of the 118 patients with positive rRT-PCR results, 62/118 (52.5%) had positive CCT scans. With the rRT-PCR results as the reference, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CCT in indicating COVID-19 infection were 52.5% (95% CI 43–61%), 67% (95% CI 56–77%), and 58.5% (95% CI 51-65%), respectively. The negative predictive value of CCT in diagnosing COVID-19 was greater for women than for men (p = 0.01). \\nConclusions: In regions where the prevalence of COVID-19 is not high, the use of CCT in the diagnosis of the disease is not an alternative to the rRT-PCR test due to its low sensitivity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10750,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cumhuriyet medical journal\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cumhuriyet medical journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7197/cmj.1164858\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cumhuriyet medical journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7197/cmj.1164858","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目的:在COVID-19大流行早期,胸部计算机断层扫描(CCT)在检测疾病方面比实时逆转录聚合酶链反应(rRT-PCR)更敏感,特别是在疾病高发地区。在本研究中,我们旨在确定胸部CT诊断COVID-19的敏感性和特异性。材料和方法:回顾性分析2020年3月17日至2020年4月25日期间因任何原因入院并行胸部CT扫描的2170例患者。纳入了预诊断为COVID-19且rRT-PCR检测阳性、连续两次rRT-PCR检测阴性或首次rRT-PCR检测阴性且随访rRT-PCR检测阳性的患者。这些患者进行rRT-PCR检测的当天计算为第0天,在+/- 3天内进行CCT的200例患者被纳入研究。结果:纳入研究的200例患者中,118例rrt - pcr阳性,82例rrt - pcr阴性。在118例rRT-PCR结果阳性的患者中,62/118(52.5%)的CCT扫描呈阳性。以rRT-PCR结果为参照,CCT检测COVID-19感染的敏感性为52.5% (95% CI 43 ~ 61%),特异性为67% (95% CI 56 ~ 77%),准确性为58.5% (95% CI 51 ~ 65%)。女性CCT诊断COVID-19的阴性预测值大于男性(p = 0.01)。结论:在COVID-19患病率不高的地区,由于CCT的敏感性较低,不能替代rRT-PCR检测诊断疾病。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Can Chest CT be the first-line diagnostic test in COVID-19? A cross-sectional study
ABSTRACT Background/aim: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, chest computerized tomography (CCT) was shown to be more sensitive than real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) in detecting the disease, especially in regions with high disease prevalence. In this study, we aimed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of chest CT in the diagnosis of COVID-19. Materials and methods: Between 17 March, 2020 and 25 April, 2020, 2170 patients who were admitted to the hospital for any reason and underwent chest CT scanning were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with a pre-diagnosis of COVID-19 and a positive rRT-PCR test, two consecutive negative rRT-PCR tests, or with a first negative rRT-PCR test and a positive follow-up rRT-PCR test were included. The day of the rRT-PCR test for these patients was counted as day “0,” and 200 patients whose CCT was performed within +/- three days were included in the study. Results: Of the 200 patients included in the study, 118 were rRT-PCR-positive, and 82 were rRT-PCR-negative. Of the 118 patients with positive rRT-PCR results, 62/118 (52.5%) had positive CCT scans. With the rRT-PCR results as the reference, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CCT in indicating COVID-19 infection were 52.5% (95% CI 43–61%), 67% (95% CI 56–77%), and 58.5% (95% CI 51-65%), respectively. The negative predictive value of CCT in diagnosing COVID-19 was greater for women than for men (p = 0.01). Conclusions: In regions where the prevalence of COVID-19 is not high, the use of CCT in the diagnosis of the disease is not an alternative to the rRT-PCR test due to its low sensitivity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
SEZGİSEL YEME NEDİR?: BİR GÖZDEN GEÇİRME Anterior One- and Two-Level Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Retrospective Study Our Clinic's Experience with Laser Hemorrhoidoplasty. DETERMINATION OF SERUM INTERLEUKIN-36 ALPHA, BETA, GAMMA AND INTERLEUKIN-17 LEVELS IN PATIENTS WITH MULTIPLE MYELOMA Surgical Outcomes and Recurrence Rates in Far Lateral Lumbar Disc Herniations: A Retrospective Analysis of 91 Cases
×
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