ArticleInternational journal of clinical practice2021
Comparison of rapid antibody test and thorax computed tomography results in patients who underwent RT-PCR with the pre-diagnosis of COVID-19.
Article in International journal of clinical practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical practice of rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant: A single-center study in China.Virologica Sinica · 2022Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of antibody-based rapid diagnostic tests in detecting coronavirus disease 2019: systematic review.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2022Review
- Comparison of rapid antibody test and thorax computed tomography results in patients who underwent RT-PCR with the pre-diagnosis of COVID-19.International journal of clinical practice · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn this study, it is planned to compare the real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, which is the gold standard in the diagnosis of COVID-19, with thorax computed tomography (CT) and rapid antibody test results.
methodsPatients who were admitted to the emergency service of İzmir Çiğli Training and Research Hospital between 01.04.2020 and 31.05.2020 and who were suspected of having COVID-19 infection were included in the study. The medical records of the patients were retrospectively analysed through the hospital data processing database. Age, gender, hospitalisation, status of home quarantine, real-time RT-PCR, thorax CT and rapid antibody test results of the patients were examined. The relationship between RT-PCR, thorax CT and rapid antibody test results was compared statistically.
resultsA total of 181 patients, 115 (63.5%) male and 66 (36.5%) female, with an average age of 56.4 ± 18.06 years were included in the study. The nasopharyngeal swab PCR result obtained at the first admission of the patients to the emergency department was positive in 71 (39.2%) patients. Rapid antibody tests performed at hospital admission were positive in 57 (31.5%) patients. Thorax CT was performed in 173 (95.6%) patients who applied to the emergency department, and 112 (64.7%) of them had findings that could be compatible with COVID-19. According to the thorax CT findings in patients, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for detecting COVID-19 infection were, respectively, 76.1%, 43.1%, 48.2% and 72.1% (ĸ: 0.176, P < .001). According to the rapid antibody test results, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for detecting COVID-19 infection were 57.5%, 85.5%, 71.9% and 75.8%, respectively (ĸ: 0.448, P < .001). In our study, the mortality rate for COVID-19 was found to be 2.8%.
conclusionRapid antibody test and thorax CT examinations were found to have low diagnostic value in patients who admitted to the emergency department of our hospital and whose first RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 test was positive. Studies involving larger patient groups are needed for their use alone in diagnosis and screening.
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.