Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34424791›Full record

ArticleScience progress

The diagnostic value of chest X-ray in coronavirus disease 2019: A comparative study of X-ray and CT.

Fengxia Zeng, Yong Cai, Yi Guo, Weiguo Chen, Min Lin, Jun Zheng, Hui Zeng, Sina Wang, Genggeng Qin

Open access · diamondAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Science progress. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 43% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Fengxia ZengRadiology Department, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Yong CaiCT Department, Maoming People's Hospital, Maoming, Guangdong, China.
Yi GuoRadiology Department, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Weiguo ChenRadiology Department, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Min LinRadiology Department, Honghu People's Hospital, Honghu, Hubei, China.
Jun ZhengRadiology Department, Honghu People's Hospital, Honghu, Hubei, China.
Hui ZengRadiology Department, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Sina WangRadiology Department, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Genggeng QinRadiology Department, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7563-3924
Nanfang Hospital · CNHonghu People’s Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic spreads around the world, the demand for imaging examinations increases accordingly. The value of conventional chest radiography (CCR) remains unclear. In this study, we aimed to investigate the diagnostic value of CCR in the detection of COVID-19 through a comparative analysis of CCR and CT. This study included 49 patients with 52 CT images and chest radiographs of pathogen-confirmed COVID-19 cases and COVID-19-suspected cases that were found to be negative (non-COVID-19). The performance of CCR in detecting COVID-19 was compared to CT imaging. The major signatures that allowed for differentiation between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cases were also evaluated. Approximately 75% (39/52) of images had positive findings on the chest x-ray examinations, while 80.7% (42/52) had positive chest CT scans. The COVID-19 group accounted for 88.4% (23/26) of positive chest X-ray examinations and 96.1% (25/26) of positive chest CT scans. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CCR for abnormal shadows were 88%, 80%, and 87%, respectively, for all patients. For the COVID-19 group, the accuracy of CCR was 92%. The primary signature on CCR was flocculent shadows in both groups. The shadows were primarily in the bi-pulmonary, which was significantly different from non-COVID-19 patients (

Indexed as

AdultAgedCOVID-19FemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsRadiography, ThoracicTomography, X-Ray Computedcomputed tomographyconventional chest radiographycoronavirus disease 2019COVID-19CT imaging

Identifiers

PMID34424791
PMCPMC10450779
OpenAlexW3194206201

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.