ArticleEmergency radiology2021
Diagnostic performance of chest radiography in high COVID-19 prevalence setting: experience from a European reference hospital.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Agreement between emergency medicine residents and radiologists in RSNA-Based chest CT interpretation.Emergency radiology · 2026Article
- Entropy removal of medical diagnostics.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe study's aim is to analyse the diagnostic performance of chest radiography (CXR) in patients with suspected coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19).
methodsWe retrospectively considered 826 consecutive patients with suspected COVID-19 presenting to our emergency department (ED) from February 21 to March 31, 2020, in a high disease prevalence setting. We enrolled patients who underwent CXR and rhino-oropharyngeal swab for real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR). CXRs were evaluated by an expert radiologist; a second independent analysis was performed by two residents in consensus. All readers, blinded to rRT-PCR results, classified CXRs positive/negative depending on presence/absence of typical findings of COVID-19, using rRT-PCR as reference standard.
resultsWe finally analysed 680 patients (median age 58); 547 (80%) tested positive for COVID-19. The diagnostic performance of CXR, interpreted by the expert reader, was as follows: sensitivity (79.0%; 95% CI: 75.3-82.3), specificity (81.2%; 95% CI: 73.5-87.5), PPV (94.5%;95% CI: 92.0-96.4), NPV (48.4%; 95% CI: 41.7-55.2), and accuracy (79.3%; 95% CI: 76.0-82.2). For the residents: sensitivity (75.1%; 95% CI: 71.2-78.7), specificity (57.9%; 95% CI: 49.9-66.4), PPV (88.0%; 95% CI: 84.7-90.8), NPV (36.2%; 95% CI: 29.7-43.0), and accuracy (71.6%; 95% CI: 68.1-75.0). We found a significant difference between the reporting sensitivity (p = 0.013) and specificity (p < 0.0001) of expert radiologist vs residents. CXR sensitivity was higher in patients with symptom onset > 5 days before ED presentation compared to ≤ 5 days (84.4% vs 70.7%).
conclusionsCXR showed a sensitivity of 79% and a specificity of 81% in diagnosing viral pneumonia in symptomatic patients with clinical suspicion of COVID-19. Further studies in lower prevalence settings are needed.
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.