Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33968311›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of radiology2021

Discrepancies in the clinical and radiological profiles of COVID-19: A case-based discussion and review of literature.

Hemant Kumar, Cornelius James Fernandez, Sangeetha Kolpattil, Mohamed Munavvar, Joseph M Pappachan

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Observational
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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Hemant KumarCollege of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TH, United Kingdom.
Cornelius James FernandezDepartment of Medicine & Endocrinology, Pilgrim Hospital, Boston PE21 9QS, United Kingdom.
Sangeetha KolpattilDepartment of Radiology, University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Trust, Lancaster LA1 4RP, United Kingdom.
Mohamed MunavvarDepartment of Pulmonology & Chest Diseases, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Preston PR2 9HT, United Kingdom.
Joseph M PappachanDepartment of Medicine & Endocrinology, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Preston PR2 9HT, United Kingdom.
Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBBirmingham Dental Hospital · GBPilgrim Hospital · GBUniversity Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current gold standard for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is a positive reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, on the background of clinical suspicion. However, RT-PCR has its limitations; this includes issues of low sensitivity, sampling errors and appropriate timing of specimen collection. As pulmonary involvement is the most common manifestation of severe COVID-19, early and appropriate lung imaging is important to aid diagnosis. However, gross discrepancies can occur between the clinical and imaging findings in patients with COVID-19, which can mislead clinicians in their decision making. Although chest X-ray (CXR) has a low sensitivity for the diagnosis of COVID-19 associated lung disease, especially in the earlier stages, a positive CXR increases the pre-test probability of COVID-19. CXR scoring systems have shown to be useful, such as the COVID-19 opacification rating score which helps to predict the need of tracheal intubation. Furthermore, artificial intelligence-based algorithms have also shown promise in differentiating COVID-19 pneumonia on CXR from other lung diseases. Although costlier than CXR, unenhanced computed tomographic (CT) chest scans have a higher sensitivity, but lesser specificity compared to RT-PCR for the diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia. A semi-quantitative CT scoring system has been shown to predict short-term mortality. The routine use of CT pulmonary angiography as a first-line imaging modality in patients with suspected COVID-19 is not justifiable due to the risk of contrast nephropathy. Scoring systems similar to those pioneered in CXR and CT can be used to effectively plan and manage hospital resources such as ventilators. Lung ultrasound is useful in the assessment of critically ill COVID-19 patients in the hands of an experienced operator. Moreover, it is a convenient tool to monitor disease progression, as it is cheap, non-invasive, easily accessible and easy to sterilise. Newer lung imaging modalities such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for safe imaging among children, adolescents and pregnant women are rapidly evolving. Imaging modalities are also essential for evaluating the extra-pulmonary manifestations of COVID-19: these include cranial imaging with CT or MRI; cardiac imaging with ultrasonography (US), CT and MRI; and abdominal imaging with US or CT. This review critically analyses the utility of each imaging modality to empower clinicians to use them appropriately in the management of patients with COVID-19 infection.

Indexed as

Chest X-rayComputed tomographyCOVID-19Lung imagingLung ultrasoundPneumonia

Identifiers

PMID33968311
PMCPMC8069347
OpenAlexW3157868855

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.