ArticleRespiratory research2023
Comparison of clinician diagnosis of COVID-19 with real time polymerase chain reaction in an adult-representative population in Sweden.
Article in Respiratory research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Designing the CORI score for COVID-19 diagnosis in parallel with deep learning-based imaging models.Narra J · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDue to the high transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2, accurate diagnosis is essential for effective infection control, but the gold standard, real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), is costly, slow, and test capacity has at times been insufficient. We compared the accuracy of clinician diagnosis of COVID-19 against RT-PCR in a general adult population.
methodsCOVID-19 diagnosis data by 30th September 2021 for participants in an ongoing population-based cohort study of adults in Western Sweden were retrieved from registers, based on positive RT-PCR and clinician diagnosis using recommended ICD-10 codes. We calculated accuracy measures of clinician diagnosis using RT-PCR as reference for all subjects and stratified by age, gender, BMI, and comorbidity collected pre-COVID-19.
resultsOf 42,621 subjects, 3,936 (9.2%) and 5705 (13.4%) had had COVID-19 identified by RT-PCR and clinician diagnosis, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of clinician diagnosis against RT-PCR were 78% (95%CI 77-80%) and 93% (95%CI 93-93%), respectively. Positive predictive value (PPV) was 54% (95%CI 53-55%), while negative predictive value (NPV) was 98% (95%CI 98-98%) and Youden's index 71% (95%CI 70-72%). These estimates were similar between men and women, across age groups, BMI categories, and between patients with and without asthma. However, while specificity, NPV, and Youden's index were similar between patients with and without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), sensitivity was slightly higher in patients with (84% [95%CI 74-90%]) than those without (78% [95%CI 77-79%]) COPD.
conclusionsThe accuracy of clinician diagnosis for COVID-19 is adequate, regardless of gender, age, BMI, and asthma, and thus can be used for screening purposes to supplement RT-PCR.
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.