ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Analysis of Diagnostic Modalities in Hospital-admitted Patients Evaluated for COVID-19.
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimTo assess the diagnostic performance of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), low-dose chest computed tomography (CT), and serological testing, alone and in combinations, as well as routine inflammatory markers in patients evaluated for COVID-19 during the first wave in early 2020. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed data of all patients who were admitted to the emergency department due to fever and/or respiratory symptoms. CT scans were rated using the COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) suspicion score. True disease status (COVID-19 - positive vs. negative) was adjudicated by two independent clinicians. Receiver-operating characteristic curves and areas under the curves were calculated for inflammatory markers. Sensitivities and specificities were calculated for RT-PCR, CT, and serology alone, as well as the combinations of RT-PCR+CT, RT-PCR+serology, CT+serology, and all three modalities.
resultsOf 221 patients with a median age of 72 years, 113 were classified as COVID-19 positive. Among 180 patients from which data on CT and RT-PCR were available, RT-PCR had the highest sensitivity to detect COVID-19 (0.87; 95%CI=0.78-0.93). Notably, the addition of CT in the analysis increased sensitivity to 0.89 (95%CI=0.8-0.94), but lowered specificity from 1 (95%CI=0.96-1) to 0.9 (95%CI=0.83-0.95). The combination of RT-PCR, CT and serology (n=60 patients with complete dataset) yielded a sensitivity of 0.83 (95%CI=0.61-0.94) and specificity of 0.86 (95%CI=0.72-0.93).
conclusionRT-PCR was the best single test in patients evaluated for COVID-19. Conversely, the routine performance of chest CT adds little sensitivity and decreases specificity.
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.