Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Diagnostics (Basel) ; 11(10)2021 Oct 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1480625

ABSTRACT

(1) Background: Chest radiography (CXR) is still a key diagnostic component in the emergency department (ED). Correct interpretation is essential since some pathologies require urgent treatment. This study quantifies potential discrepancies in CXR analysis between radiologists and non-radiology physicians in training with ED experience. (2) Methods: Nine differently qualified physicians (three board-certified radiologists [BCR], three radiology residents [RR], and three non-radiology residents involved in ED [NRR]) evaluated a series of 563 posterior-anterior CXR images by quantifying suspicion for four relevant pathologies: pleural effusion, pneumothorax, pneumonia, and pulmonary nodules. Reading results were noted separately for each hemithorax on a Likert scale (0-4; 0: no suspicion of pathology, 4: safe existence of pathology) adding up to a total of 40,536 reported pathology suspicions. Interrater reliability/correlation and Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed for statistical analysis. (3) Results: While interrater reliability was good among radiologists, major discrepancies between radiologists' and non-radiologists' reading results could be observed in all pathologies. Highest overall interrater agreement was found for pneumothorax detection and lowest agreement in raising suspicion for malignancy suspicious nodules. Pleural effusion and pneumonia were often suspected with indifferent choices (1-3). In terms of pneumothorax detection, all readers mainly decided for a clear option (0 or 4). Interrater reliability was usually higher when evaluating the right hemithorax (all pathologies except pneumothorax). (4) Conclusions: Quantified CXR interrater reliability analysis displays a general uncertainty and strongly depends on medical training. NRR can benefit from radiology reporting in terms of time efficiency and diagnostic accuracy. CXR evaluation of long-time trained ED specialists has not been tested.

2.
BMC Infect Dis ; 21(1): 167, 2021 Feb 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1079217

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Characteristics of COVID-19 patients have mainly been reported within confirmed COVID-19 cohorts. By analyzing patients with respiratory infections in the emergency department during the first pandemic wave, we aim to assess differences in the characteristics of COVID-19 vs. Non-COVID-19 patients. This is particularly important regarding the second COVID-19 wave and the approaching influenza season. METHODS: We prospectively included 219 patients with suspected COVID-19 who received radiological imaging and RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2. Demographic, clinical and laboratory parameters as well as RT-PCR results were used for subgroup analysis. Imaging data were reassessed using the following scoring system: 0 - not typical, 1 - possible, 2 - highly suspicious for COVID-19. RESULTS: COVID-19 was diagnosed in 72 (32,9%) patients. In three of them (4,2%) the initial RT-PCR was negative while initial CT scan revealed pneumonic findings. 111 (50,7%) patients, 61 of them (55,0%) COVID-19 positive, had evidence of pneumonia. Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia showed higher body temperature (37,7 ± 0,1 vs. 37,1 ± 0,1 °C; p = 0.0001) and LDH values (386,3 ± 27,1 vs. 310,4 ± 17,5 U/l; p = 0.012) as well as lower leukocytes (7,6 ± 0,5 vs. 10,1 ± 0,6G/l; p = 0.0003) than patients with other pneumonia. Among abnormal CT findings in COVID-19 patients, 57 (93,4%) were evaluated as highly suspicious or possible for COVID-19. In patients with negative RT-PCR and pneumonia, another third was evaluated as highly suspicious or possible for COVID-19 (14 out of 50; 28,0%). The sensitivity in the detection of patients requiring isolation was higher with initial chest CT than with initial RT-PCR (90,4% vs. 79,5%). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients show typical clinical, laboratory and imaging parameters which enable a sensitive detection of patients who demand isolation measures due to COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/physiopathology , Respiratory Tract Infections/diagnosis , Respiratory Tract Infections/physiopathology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Emergency Service, Hospital , Female , Germany/epidemiology , Hospitalization , Humans , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Young Adult
3.
J Clin Med ; 10(1)2020 Dec 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1004736

ABSTRACT

(1) Background: Time-consuming SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR suffers from limited sensitivity in early infection stages whereas fast available chest CT can already raise COVID-19 suspicion. Nevertheless, radiologists' performance to differentiate COVID-19, especially from influenza pneumonia, is not sufficiently characterized. (2) Methods: A total of 201 pneumonia CTs were identified and divided into subgroups based on RT-PCR: 78 COVID-19 CTs, 65 influenza CTs and 62 Non-COVID-19-Non-influenza (NCNI) CTs. Three radiology experts (blinded from RT-PCR results) raised pathogen-specific suspicion (separately for COVID-19, influenza, bacterial pneumonia and fungal pneumonia) according to the following reading scores: 0-not typical/1-possible/2-highly suspected. Diagnostic performances were calculated with RT-PCR as a reference standard. Dependencies of radiologists' pathogen suspicion scores were characterized by Pearson's Chi2 Test for Independence. (3) Results: Depending on whether the intermediate reading score 1 was considered as positive or negative, radiologists correctly classified 83-85% (vs. NCNI)/79-82% (vs. influenza) of COVID-19 cases (sensitivity up to 94%). Contrarily, radiologists correctly classified only 52-56% (vs. NCNI)/50-60% (vs. COVID-19) of influenza cases. The COVID-19 scoring was more specific than the influenza scoring compared with suspected bacterial or fungal infection. (4) Conclusions: High-accuracy COVID-19 detection by CT might expedite patient management even during the upcoming influenza season.

4.
Journal of Clinical Medicine ; 10(1):84, 2021.
Article in English | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-984764

ABSTRACT

(1) Background: Time-consuming SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR suffers from limited sensitivity in early infection stages whereas fast available chest CT can already raise COVID-19 suspicion. Nevertheless, radiologists’performance to differentiate COVID-19, especially from influenza pneumonia, is not sufficiently characterized. (2) Methods: A total of 201 pneumonia CTs were identified and divided into subgroups based on RT-PCR: 78 COVID-19 CTs, 65 influenza CTs and 62 Non-COVID-19-Non-influenza (NCNI) CTs. Three radiology experts (blinded from RT-PCR results) raised pathogen-specific suspicion (separately for COVID-19, influenza, bacterial pneumonia and fungal pneumonia) according to the following reading scores: 0—not typical/1—possible/2—highly suspected. Diagnostic performances were calculated with RT-PCR as a reference standard. Dependencies of radiologists’pathogen suspicion scores were characterized by Pearson’s Chi2 Test for Independence. (3) Results: Depending on whether the intermediate reading score 1 was considered as positive or negative, radiologists correctly classified 83–85% (vs. NCNI)/79–82% (vs. influenza) of COVID-19 cases (sensitivity up to 94%). Contrarily, radiologists correctly classified only 52–56% (vs. NCNI)/50–60% (vs. COVID-19) of influenza cases. The COVID-19 scoring was more specific than the influenza scoring compared with suspected bacterial or fungal infection. (4) Conclusions: High-accuracy COVID-19 detection by CT might expedite patient management even during the upcoming influenza season.

5.
Diagnostics ; 10(12):1108, 2020.
Article in English | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-984342

ABSTRACT

(1) Background: To assess the value of chest CT imaging features of COVID-19 disease upon hospital admission for risk stratification of invasive ventilation (IV) versus no or non-invasive ventilation (non-IV) during hospital stay. (2) Methods: A retrospective single-center study was conducted including all patients admitted during the first three months of the pandemic at our hospital with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 disease and admission chest CT scans (n = 69). Using clinical information and CT imaging features, a 10-point ordinal risk score was developed and its diagnostic potential to differentiate a severe (IV-group) from a more moderate course (non-IV-group) of the disease was tested. (3) Results: Frequent imaging findings of COVID-19 pneumonia in both groups were ground glass opacities (91.3%), consolidations (53.6%) and crazy paving patterns (31.9%). Characteristics of later stages such as subpleural bands were observed significantly more often in the IV-group (52.2% versus 26.1%, p = 0.032). Using information directly accessible during a radiologist’s reporting, a simple risk score proved to reliably differentiate between IV- and non-IV-groups (AUC: 0.89 (95% CI 0.81–0.96), p <0.001). (4) Conclusions: Information accessible from admission CT scans can effectively and reliably be used in a scoring model to support risk stratification of COVID-19 patients to improve resource and allocation management of hospitals.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL