ReviewPolish journal of radiology2022
Update on the limited sensitivity of computed tomography relative to RT-PCR for COVID-19: a systematic review.
Review in Polish journal of radiology, 2022. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The global and ongoing COVID-19 outbreak has compelled the need for timely and reliable methods of detection for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has been widely accepted as a reference standard for COVID-19 diagnosis, several early studies have suggested the superior sensitivity of computed tomography (CT) in identifying SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a previous systematic review, we stratified studies based on risk for bias to evaluate the true sensitivity of CT for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study revisits our prior analysis, incorporating more current data to assess the sensitivity of CT for COVID-19. Material and methods: The PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched for relevant articles published between 1 January 2020, and 25 April 2021. Exclusion criteria included lack of specification regarding whether the study cohort was adult or paediatric, whether patients were symptomatic or asymptomatic, and not identifying the source of RT-PCR specimens. Ultimately, 62 studies were included for systematic review and were subsequently stratified by risk for bias using the QUADAS-2 quality assessment tool. Sensitivity data were extracted for random effects meta-analyses. Results: The average sensitivity for COVID-19 reported by the high-risk-of-bias studies was 68% [CI: 58, 80; range: 38-96%] for RT-PCR and 91% [CI: 87, 96; range: 47-100%] for CT. The average sensitivity reported by the low-risk-of-bias studies was 84% [CI: 0.75, 0.94; range: 70-97%] for RT-PCR and 78% [CI: 71, 0.86; range: 44-92%] for CT. Conclusions: On average, the high-risk-of bias studies underestimated the sensitivity of RT-PCR and overestimated the sensitivity of CT for COVID-19. Given the incorporation of recently published low-risk-of-bias articles, the sensitivities according to low-risk-of-bias studies for both RT-PCR and CT were higher than previously reported.
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.