ArticleRadiology. Cardiothoracic imaging2020
Suboptimal Quality and High Risk of Bias in Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies at Chest Radiography and CT in the Acute Setting of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review.
Article in Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- The plaque factor: Can coronary CT angiography plaque analysis link stenosis and ischemia?European radiology · 2025Article
- A unified framework for diagnostic test development and evaluation during outbreaks of emerging infections.Communications medicine · 2024Review
- The role of chest imaging in the diagnosis, management, and monitoring of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).Insights into imaging · 2021Review
- The rapid, massive growth of COVID-19 authors in the scientific literature.Royal Society open science · 2021Article
- Highlighting COVID-19: What the imaging exams show about the disease.World journal of radiology · 2021Review
- Article
- Diagnostic Performance of CO-RADS and the RSNA Classification System in Evaluating COVID-19 at Chest CT: A Meta-Analysis.Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging · 2021Article
- Chest CT in Patients with COVID-19: Toward a Better Appreciation of Study Results and Clinical Applicability.Radiology · 2021Article
- Chest computed tomography in the diagnosis of COVID-19 in patients with false negative RT-PCR.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2021Article
- 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo synthesize the literature on diagnostic test accuracy of chest radiography, CT, and US for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients suspected of having COVID-19 in a hospital setting and evaluate the extent of suboptimal reporting and risk of bias. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic search was performed (April 26, 2020) in EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane to identify chest radiographic, CT, or US studies in adult patients suspected of having COVID-19, using reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction test or clinical consensus as the standard of reference. Two × two contingency tables were reconstructed, and test sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values were recalculated. Reporting quality was evaluated by adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD), and risk of bias was evaluated by adherence to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2).
resultsThirteen studies were eligible (CT = 12; chest radiography = 1; US = 0). Recalculated CT sensitivity and specificity ranged between 0.57 and 0.97, and 0.37 and 0.94, respectively, and positive predictive values and negative predictive values ranged between 0.59 and 0.92 and 0.57 and 0.96, respectively. On average, studies complied with only 35% of the STARD-guideline items. No study scored low risk of bias for all QUADAS-2 domains (patient selection, index test, reference test, and flow and timing). High risk of bias in more than one domain was scored in 10 of 13 studies (77%).
conclusionReported CT test accuracy for COVID-19 diagnosis varies substantially. The validity and generalizability of these findings is complicated by poor adherence to reporting guidelines and high risk of bias, which are most likely due to the need for urgent publication of findings in the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
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.