Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
1.
Clin Radiol ; 76(8): 553-558, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1230423

ABSTRACT

We present a multimodality pictorial review of axillary lymphadenopathy in patients recently vaccinated against COVID-19. As the mass vaccination programme continues to be rolled out worldwide in an effort to combat the pandemic, it is important that radiologists consider recent COVID-19 vaccination in the differential diagnosis of unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy and are aware of typical appearances across all imaging methods. We review current guidelines on the management of unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy in the context of recent COVID-19 vaccination.


Subject(s)
Axilla/diagnostic imaging , COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , Lymphadenopathy/chemically induced , Lymphadenopathy/diagnostic imaging , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Mass Vaccination , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
2.
Clin Radiol ; 75(9): 710.e9-710.e14, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-600856

ABSTRACT

AIM: To validate the British Society of Thoracic Imaging issued guidelines for the categorisation of chest radiographs for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reporting regarding reproducibility amongst radiologists and diagnostic performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Chest radiographs from 50 patients with COVID-19, and 50 control patients with symptoms consistent with COVID-19 from prior to the emergence of the novel coronavirus were assessed by seven consultant radiologists with regards to the British Society of Thoracic Imaging guidelines. RESULTS: The findings show excellent specificity (100%) and moderate sensitivity (44%) for guideline-defined Classic/Probable COVID-19, and substantial interobserver agreement (Fleiss' k=0.61). Fair agreement was observed for the "Indeterminate for COVID-19" (k=0.23), and "Non-COVID-19" (k=0.37) categories; furthermore, the sensitivity (0.26 and 0.14 respectively) and specificity (0.76, 0.80) of these categories for COVID-19 were not significantly different (McNemar's test p=0.18 and p=0.67). CONCLUSION: An amalgamation of the categories of "Indeterminate for COVID-19" and "Non-COVID-19" into a single "not classic of COVID-19" classification would improve interobserver agreement, encompass patients with a similar probability of COVID-19, and remove the possibility of labelling patients with COVID-19 as "Non-COVID-19", which is the presenting radiographic appearance in a significant minority (14%) of patients.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/diagnostic imaging , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnostic imaging , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Radiography, Thoracic/methods , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Aged , COVID-19 , Female , Humans , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Male , Middle Aged , Observer Variation , Pandemics , Polymerase Chain Reaction , Reproducibility of Results , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL