ArticleDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2021
The reliability of low-dose chest CT for the initial imaging of COVID-19: comparison of structured findings, categorical diagnoses and dose levels.
Article in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of ADMIRE, SAFIRE, and Filtered Back Projection in Standard and Low-Dose Non-Enhanced Head CT.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Community-Based View on Diagnostic Imaging at the End of COVID-19 Pandemic: Online Survey-Assisted Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Standardization of a CT Protocol for Imaging Patients with Suspected COVID-19-A RACOON Project.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Low-Dose Chest CT Protocols for Imaging COVID-19 Pneumonia: Technique Parameters and Radiation Dose.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Dose Descriptors and Assessment of Risk of Exposure-Induced Death in Patients Undergoing COVID-19 Related Chest Computed Tomography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe widespread use of computed tomography (CT) in COVID-19 may cause adverse biological effects. Many recommend to minimize radiation dose while maintaining diagnostic quality. This study was designed to evaluate the difference between findings of COVID-19 pneumonia on standard and low-dose protocols to provide data on the utility of the latter during initial imaging of COVID-19.
methodsPatients suspected of having COVID-19 were scanned with a 128-slices scanner using two consecutive protocols in the same session (standard-dose scan: 120 kV and 300 mA; low-dose scan: 80 kV and 40 mA). Dose data acquisition and analysis was performed using an automated software. High and low-dose examinations were anonymized, shuffled and read by two radiologist with consensus according to a highly structured reporting format that was primarily based on the consensus statement of the RSNA. Accordingly, 8 typical, 2 indeterminate, and 7 atypical findings were investigated. Cases were then assigned to one of the categories: (i) Cov19Typ, typical COVID-19; (ii) Cov19Ind, indeterminate COVID-19; (iii) Cov19Aty, atypical COVID-19; (iv) Cov19Neg, not COVID-19. McNemar test was used to analyze the number of disagreements between standard and low-dose scans regarding paired proportions of structured findings. Inter- test reliability was tested using kappa coefficient.
resultsThe study included 740 patients with a mean age of 44.05±16.59 years. The median (minimum-maximum) dose level for standard protocol was 189.98 mGy•cm (98.20-493.54 mGy•cm) and for low-dose protocol was 15.59 mGy•cm (11.59-32.37 mGy•cm) differing by -80 and -254 mGy•cm from pan-European diagnostic reference levels. Only two findings for typical, one finding for indeterminate, and three findings for atypical categories were statistically similar (p > 0.05). The difference in other categories resulted in significantly different final diagnosis for COVID-19 (p < 0.001). Overall, 626 patients received matching diagnoses with the two protocols. According to intertest reliability analysis, kappa value was found to be 0.669 (p < 0.001) to indicate substantial match. CT with standard-dose had a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 72%, while CT with low-dose had a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 81%.
conclusionLow kV and mA scans, as used in this study according to scanner manufacturer's global recommendations, may significantly lower exposure levels. However, these scans are significantly inferior in the detection of several individual CT findings of COVID-19 pneumonia, particularly the ones with GGO. Therefore, they should not be used as the protocol of choice in the initial imaging of COVID-19 patients during which higher sensitivity is required.
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.