Résumé
The original version of this article unfortunatelycontained a mistake. For Fig. 1a in p.409, the citationof a reference, as well as the permission to reprint thispicture, was missing. The correct version and thecorresponding reference are given below: (a) Chest computed tomography (CT) image of Patient 1 onadmission presents multiple ground-glass opacities distributedin the periphery of inferior lobe of both lungs. Reprinted fromZhang et al. (2020), with kind permission from SpringerNature.
Résumé
As of Apr. 22, 2020, the World Health Organization (2020) has reported over 2.4 million confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and 169 151 deaths. Recent articles have uncovered genomic characteristics and clinical features of COVID-19 (Chan et al., 2020; Chang et al., 2020; Guan et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020), while our understanding of COVID-19 is still limited. As suggested by guidelines promoted by the General Office of National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (2020) (from Versions 1 to 6), discharged standards for COVID-19 were still dependent on viral real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests of respiratory specimens, showing that recovered COVID-19 patients with twice negative RT-PCR could meet discharge criteria. Here, we examined two cases in which nucleic acid test results were inconsistent with clinical and radiological findings, leading to suboptimal care.