ArticleRadiologia
[Usefulness of chest X-rays for detecting COVID 19 pneumonia during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic].
Article in Radiologia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To review the prognostic usefulness of chest X-rays in selecting patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. Material and methods: This cross-sectional descriptive observational study analyzed 978 patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infections who underwent chest X-ray examinations in the emergency department of a tertiary hospital in March 2020. We separately analyzed demographic, clinical, and prognostic variables in two groups of patients: those in whom reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was done (n = 535) and those in whom RT-PCR was not done because of low clinical suspicion (n = 443). Results: In the group of patients with RT-PCR, the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was 70.4%, and the sensitivity of chest X-rays was 62.8%. In the group of patients without RT-PCR, chest X-rays were negative in 97.5%, corroborating the low clinical suspicion; these patients were discharged, and 5.6% of them reconsulted with mild forms of the disease. In the group of patients with RT-PCR, we observed no statistically significant differences in the percentage of pathologic chest X-rays between patients hospitalized in the ICU (72.9%) and in those hospitalized in other wards (68.3%) (p = 0.22). Conclusion: In the context of the pandemic, patients with low clinical suspicion and negative chest X-rays can be discharged with a low probability of reconsultation or of developing severe COVID19. In patients with RT-PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2, chest X-rays have no prognostic usefulness.
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.