SynthesisThe British journal of radiology2021
A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the diagnostic accuracy of initial RT-PCR and CT scan in suspected COVID-19 patients.
Synthesis in The British journal of radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Computed tomography severity score as a predictor of disease severity and mortality in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of medical imaging and radiation sciences · 2023Pooled it
- An Umbrella Review With Meta-Analysis of Chest Computed Tomography for Diagnosis of COVID-19: Considerations for Trauma Patient Management.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Do COVID-19 CT features vary between patients from within and outside mainland China? Findings from a meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2022Pooled it
- Lung abnormalities on computed tomography of Vietnamese patients with COVID-19 and the association with medical variables.IJID regions · 2024Article
- Is it necessary to define new diagnostic reference levels during pandemics like the Covid19-?Radiation physics and chemistry (Oxford, England : 1993) · 2023Article
- A deep learning-based application for COVID-19 diagnosis on CT: The Imaging COVID-19 AI initiative.PloS one · 2023Article
- COVID-19 diagnostics: Molecular biology to nanomaterials.Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry · 2023Review
- Early Diagnosis of COVID-19 Images Using Optimal CNN Hyperparameters.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Performance of a serological IgM and IgG qualitative test for COVID-19 diagnosis: An experimental study in Brazil.World journal of experimental medicine · 2022Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests, Chest Computed Tomography, and Lung Point-of-Care-Ultrasonography for SARS-CoV-2 Compared with RT-PCR Testing: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Article
- Diagnostic sensitivity of RT-PCR assays on nasopharyngeal specimens for detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Caspian journal of internal medicine · 2022Review
- Computed tomography findings in 3,557 COVID-19 infected children: a systematic review.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2021Review
- Successful management of a pregnant woman with COVID-19 and multiple severe complications.BMJ case reports · 2021Article
- The risk factors and related hospitalizations for cases with positive and negative COVID-19 tests: A case-control study.International immunopharmacology · 2021Article
- Ruling Out Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Patients with Pneumonia: The Role of Blood Cell Count and Lung Ultrasound.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Defining Post-COVID Symptoms (Post-Acute COVID, Long COVID, Persistent Post-COVID): An Integrative Classification.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Article
- Diagnostic performance of the RSNA-proposed classification for COVID-19 pneumonia versus pre-pandemic controls.The Brazilian journal of infectious diseases : an official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious DiseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic accuracy of CT and initial reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for detecting COVID-19 infection.
methodsWe searched three databases, PubMed, EMBASE, and EMCARE, to identify studies reporting diagnostic accuracy of both CT and RT-PCR in detecting COVID-19 infection between December 2019 and May 2020. For accurate comparison, only those studies that had patients undergoing both CT and RT-PCR were included. Pooled diagnostic accuracy of both the tests was calculated by using a bivariate random effects model.
resultsBased on inclusion criteria, only 11 studies consisting of 1834 patients were included in the final analysis that reported diagnostic accuracy of both CT and RT-PCR, in the same set of patients. Sensitivity estimates for CT scan ranged from 0.69 to 1.00 and for RT-PCR varied ranging from 0.47 to 1.00. The pooled estimates of sensitivity for CT and RT-PCR were 0.91 [95% CI (0.84-0.97)] and 0.84 [95% CI (0.71-0.94)], respectively. On subgroup analysis, pooled sensitivity of CT and RT-PCR was 0.95 [95% CI (0.88-0.98)] and 0.91 [95% CI (0.80-0.96),
conclusionCT is more sensitive than RT-PCR in detecting COVID-19 infection, but has a very low specificity. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Since the results of a CT scan are available quickly, it can be used as an adjunctive initial diagnostic test for patients with a history of positive contact or epidemiological history.
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.