Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35738321›Full record

ArticleClinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases2022

Imaging strategies used in emergency departments for the diagnostic workup of COVID-19 patients during the first wave of the pandemic: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Sabrina Kepka, Kevin Zarca, Damien Viglino, Nicolas Marjanovic, Omide Taheri, Olivier Peyrony, Thibaut Desmettre, Valérie Wilme, Tania Marx, Joris Muller and 9 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

19 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Sabrina KepkaEmergency Department, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France; Clinical Research Unit Eco Ile de France, Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Paris, France; ICUBE UMR 7357 CNRS, Illkirch-Graffenstaden, France. Electronic address: sabrinakepka@yahoo.fr.
Kevin ZarcaClinical Research Unit Eco Ile de France, Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Paris, France.
Damien ViglinoEmergency Department, Grenoble-Alpes University Hospital, La Tronche, France.
Nicolas MarjanovicEmergency Department, University Hospital of Poitiers, Poitiers, France.
Omide TaheriEmergency Department, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France.
Olivier PeyronyEmergency Department, Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, France.
Thibaut DesmettreEmergency Department, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France.
Valérie WilmeEmergency Department, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Tania MarxEmergency Department, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France.
Joris MullerPublic Health Units, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Sebastien HarscoatEmergency Department, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Pierrick Le BorgneEmergency Department, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France; UMR 1260, INSERM / Université de Strasbourg CRBS, Strasbourg, France.
Eric BayleEmergency Department, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Nicolas LefebvreDepartment of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Yves HansmannDepartment of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France; Fédération de Médecine Translationnelle de Strasbourg, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Samira Fafi-KremerFédération de Médecine Translationnelle de Strasbourg, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France; Department of Virology, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Mickaël OhanaICUBE UMR 7357 CNRS, Illkirch-Graffenstaden, France; Radiology Department, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Isabelle Durand ZaleskiClinical Research Unit Eco Ile de France, Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Paris, France; Univ Paris Est Creteil (UPEC), Université de Paris, Bobigny, France.
Pascal BilbaultEmergency Department, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France; UMR 1260, INSERM / Université de Strasbourg CRBS, Strasbourg, France.
Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Besançon · FRCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRInserm · FRHôpital Saint-Louis · FRHôtel-Dieu de Paris · FRUniversité de Poitiers · FRUniversité Grenoble Alpes · FRUniversité Paris-Est Créteil · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesEmergency departments (EDs) were on the front line for the diagnostic workup of patients with COVID-19-like symptoms during the first wave. Chest imaging was the key to rapidly identifying COVID-19 before administering RT-PCR, which was time-consuming. The objective of our study was to compare the costs and organizational benefits of triage strategies in ED during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

methodsWe conducted a retrospective study in five EDs in France, involving 3712 consecutive patients consulting with COVID-like symptoms between 9 March 2020 and 8 April 2020, to assess the cost effectiveness of imaging strategies (chest radiography, chest computed tomography (CT) scan in the presence of respiratory symptoms, systematic ultra-low-dose (ULD) chest CT, and no systematic imaging) on ED length of stay (LOS) in the ED and on hospital costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the difference in costs divided by the difference in LOS.

resultsCompared with chest radiography, workup with systematic ULD chest CT was the more cost-effective strategy (average LOS of 6.89 hours; average cost of €3646), allowing for an almost 4-hour decrease in LOS in the ED at a cost increase of €98 per patient. Chest radiography (extendedly dominated) and RT-PCR with no systematic imaging were the least effective strategies, with an average LOS of 10.8 hours. The strategy of chest CT in the presence of respiratory symptoms was more effective than the systematic ULD chest CT strategy, with the former providing a gain of 37 minutes at an extra cost of €718. DISCUSSION: Systematic ULD chest CT for patients with COVID-like symptoms in the ED is a cost-effective strategy and should be considered to improve the management of patients in the ED during the pandemic, given the need to triage patients.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsCost-Benefit AnalysisEmergency Service, HospitalHumansRetrospective StudiesChest radiographyCost effectivenessCOVID-19RT-PCRUltra–low-dose chest CT

Identifiers

PMID35738321
PMCPMC9212395
OpenAlexW4283218720

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.