ReviewPolish journal of radiology2021
Chest computed tomography versus RT-PCR in early diagnostics of COVID-19 - a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Review in Polish journal of radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Auxiliary screening COVID-19 by computed tomography.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- COVID-19 Diagnosis and Classification Using Radiological Imaging and Deep Learning Techniques: A Comparative Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Comparative study of six SARS-CoV-2 serology assays: Diagnostic performance and antibody dynamics in a cohort of hospitalized patients for moderate to critical COVID-19.International journal of immunopathology and pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the sensitivity and specificity of computed tomography (CT) scans of the chests of patients with the reference reverse-transcription real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in early diagnosis of COVID-19. A systematic review with meta-analysis for numerical outcomes was performed, including 10 studies (6528 patients). High risk of systematic bias (spectrum bias) was demonstrated in all studies, while in several studies research information bias was found to be possible. The sensitivity of CT examination ranged from 72% to 98%, and the specificity from 22% to 96%. The overall sensitivity of the CT scan was 91% and the specificity 87% (95% CI). Overall sensitivity of the RT-PCR reference test was lower (87%) than its specificity (99%) (95% CI). No clear conclusion could be drawn on the rationale of using CT scanning in the early diagnosis of COVID-19 in situations when specific clinical symptoms and epidemiological history would indicate coronavirus infection. The sensitivity of the CT test seems to be higher than that of the RT-PCR reference test, but this may be related to the mode of analysis and type of material analysed in genetic tests. CT scanning could be performed in symptomatic patients, with a defined time interval from symptom onset to performing CT or RT-PCR, and it should be explicitly included as an additional procedure when initial coronavirus genetic test results are negative, while clinical symptoms and epidemiological history indicate possible infection. However, a reference test showing the presence of coronavirus genetic material is essential throughout the diagnostic and treatment process.
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.