Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32844901›Full record

SynthesisSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina

Reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction versus chest computed tomography for detecting early symptoms of COVID-19. A diagnostic accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis.

Márcio Luís Duarte, Lucas Ribeiro Dos Santos, Andrea Carla de Souza Contenças, Wagner Iared, Maria Stella Peccin, Álvaro Nagib Atallah

Open access · diamondAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Cost-effectiveness analysis of COVID-19 tests in the unified health system.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2023
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Márcio Luís DuarteMD, MSc. Musculoskeletal Radiologist, WEBIMAGEM, São Paulo (SP), Brazil; Doctoral Student in Evidence-Based Health Program, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo (SP), Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-7874-9332
Lucas Ribeiro Dos SantosMD, MSc. Endocrinologist and Professor of Physiology and Internal Medicine, Centro Universitário Lusíada (UNILUS), Santos (SP), Brazil; Doctoral Student in Evidence-Based Health Program, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo (SP), Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-7897-1198
Andrea Carla de Souza ContençasMD. Pulmonologist and Professor of Emergency Medicine. Centro Universitário Lusíada (UNILUS), Santos (SP), Brazil; Master's Degree Student in Evidence-Based Health Program, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo (SP), Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-0070-6401
Wagner IaredMD, PhD. Supervising Professor of the Postgraduate Evidence-Based Health Program, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo (SP), Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-6426-5636
Maria Stella PeccinPT, PhD. Associate Professor, Department of Human Movement Sciences, and Advisor, Postgraduate Evidence-Based Health Program, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo (SP), Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-0329-4588
Álvaro Nagib AtallahMD, PhD. Head of Evidence-Based Health Department, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo (SP), Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-0890-594X
Universidade Federal de São Paulo · BRCentro Universitário Lusíada · BRHermes Microvision (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA positive real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for SARS CoV-2, from nasopharyngeal swabs, is the current gold standard diagnostic test for this virus and has sensitivity of 60-70%. Some studies have demonstrated a significant number of false-negative RT-PCR tests while displaying significant tomographic findings, in the early days of symptoms of COVID-19.

objectiveTo compare accuracy between RT-PCR and computed tomography (CT) for detecting COVID-19 in the first week of its symptoms during the pandemic. DESIGN AND

settingSystematic review of comparative studies of diagnostic accuracy within the Evidence-based Health Program of a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil.

methodsA systematic search of the relevant literature was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and LILACS databases, for articles published up to June 6, 2020, relating to studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of RT-PCR and chest CT for COVID-19 diagnoses. The QUADAS 2 tool was used for methodological quality evaluation.

resultsIn total, 1204 patients with COVID-19 were evaluated; 1045 had tomographic findings while 755 showed positive RT-PCR for COVID-19. RT-PCR demonstrated 81.4% sensitivity, 100% specificity and 92.3% accuracy. Chest CT demonstrated 95.3% sensitivity, 43.8% specificity and 63.3% accuracy.

conclusionThe high sensitivity and detection rates shown by CT demonstrate that this technique has a high degree of importance in the early stages of the disease. During an outbreak, the higher prevalence of the condition increases the positive predictive value of CT. REGISTRATION NUMBER: DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/UNGHA in the Open Science Framework.

Indexed as

Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionTomography, X-Ray ComputedBetacoronavirusBrazilClinical Laboratory TechniquesCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19COVID-19 TestingCOVID-19 VaccinesHumansPandemicsPneumonia, ViralSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityCOVID-19 Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID32844901
PMCPMC9673868
OpenAlexW3081320206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.