ReviewCureus2023
A Review of Crucial Radiological Investigations in the Management of COVID-19 Cases.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chest X-ray, chest CT, and lung ultrasound are the most common radiological interventions used in the diagnosis and management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. The purpose of this literature review, which was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, is to determine which radiological investigation is crucial for that purpose. PubMed, Medline, American Journal of Radiology (AJR), Public Library of Science (PLOS), Elsevier, National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), and ScienceDirect were explored. Seventy-two articles were reviewed for potential inclusion, including 50 discussing chest CT, 15 discussing chest X-ray, five discussing lung ultrasound, and two discussing COVID-19 epidemiology. The reported sensitivities and specificities for chest CT ranged from 64 to 98% and 25 to 88%, respectively. The reported sensitivities and specificities for chest X-rays ranged from 33 to 89% and 11.1 to 88.9%, respectively. The reported sensitivities and specificities for lung ultrasound ranged from 93 to 96.8% and 21.3 to 95%, respectively. The most common findings on chest CT include ground glass opacities and consolidation. The most common findings on chest X-rays include opacities, consolidation, and pleural effusion. The data indicate that chest CT is the most effective radiological tool for the diagnosis and management of COVID-19 patients. The authors support the continued use of reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), along with physical examination and contact history, for such diagnosis. Chest CT could be more appropriate in emergency situations when quick triage of patients is necessary before RT-PCR results are available. CT can also be used to visualize the progression of COVID-19 pneumonia and to identify potential false positive RT-PCR results. Chest X-ray and lung ultrasound are acceptable in situations where chest CT is unavailable or contraindicated.
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.