ArticleClinical imaging2021
Improving CT accuracy in the diagnosis of COVID-19 in a hospital setting.
Article in Clinical imaging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Mutations in SARS-CoV-2: Insights on structure, variants, vaccines, and biomedical interventions.Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & pharmacotherapie · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to improve the accuracy of CT for detection of COVID-19-associated pneumonia and to identify patient subgroups who might benefit most from CT imaging.
methodsA total of 269 patients who underwent CT for suspected COVID-19 were included in this retrospective analysis. COVID-19 was confirmed by reverse-transcription-polymerase-chain-reaction. Basic demographics (age and sex) and initial vital parameters (O
resultsThe sole use of vital parameters for the prediction of COVID-19 was inferior to CT. After correction for confounders, such as age and sex, CT showed a sensitivity of 0.86, specificity of 0.78, and positive predictive value of 0.36. In the subgroup analysis based on pretest probability, positive predictive value and sensitivity increased to 0.53 and 0.89 in the high-risk group, while specificity was reduced to 0.68. In the low-risk group, sensitivity and positive predictive value decreased to 0.76 and 0.33 with a specificity of 0.83. The negative predictive value remained high (0.94 and 0.97) in both groups.
conclusionsThe accuracy of CT for the detection of COVID-19 might be increased by selecting patients with a high-pretest probability of COVID-19.
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.