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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Differences of the Chest Images Between Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Patients and Influenza Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.International journal of medical sciences · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Deep Learning Detection of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Academic radiology · 2021Pooled it
- Indications for accurate and appropriate use of personal protective equipment for healthcare professionals. A systematic review.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicinaPooled it
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of COVID-19 tests in the unified health system.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2023Article
- Review
- Progress and Challenges of Point-of-Need Photonic Biosensors for the Diagnosis of COVID-19 Infections and Immunity.Biosensors · 2022Review
- IgM anti-SARS-CoV-2-specific determination: useful or confusing? Big Data analysis of a real-life scenario.Internal and emergency medicine · 2021Article
- Computed tomography findings in 3,557 COVID-19 infected children: a systematic review.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2021Review
- How did radiologists' diagnostic performance has changed in COVID-19 pneumonia: A single-centre retrospective study.International journal of clinical practice · 2021Article
- A Comparison of Lung Ultrasound and Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Estimating point prevalence of COVID-19 in Qatar's primary care registered population: an RT-PCR drive-through study protocol.BJGP open · 2021Article
- Chest computed tomography versus RT-PCR in early diagnostics of COVID-19 - a systematic review with meta-analysis.Polish journal of radiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.