The diagnostic value of chest X-ray in coronavirus disease 2019: A comparative study of X-ray and CT.

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic spreads around the world, the demand for imaging examinations increases accordingly. The value of conventional chest radiography (CCR) remains unclear. In this study, we aimed to investigate the diagnostic value of CCR in the detection of COVID-19 through a comparative analysis of CCR and CT. This study included 49 patients with 52 CT images and chest radiographs of pathogen-confirmed COVID-19 cases and COVID-19-suspected cases that were found to be negative (non-COVID-19). The performance of CCR in detecting COVID-19 was compared to CT imaging. The major signatures that allowed for differentiation between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cases were also evaluated. Approximately 75% (39/52) of images had positive findings on the chest x-ray examinations, while 80.7% (42/52) had positive chest CT scans. The COVID-19 group accounted for 88.4% (23/26) of positive chest X-ray examinations and 96.1% (25/26) of positive chest CT scans. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CCR for abnormal shadows were 88%, 80%, and 87%, respectively, for all patients. For the COVID-19 group, the accuracy of CCR was 92%. The primary signature on CCR was flocculent shadows in both groups. The shadows were primarily in the bi-pulmonary, which was significantly different from non-COVID-19 patients (p = 0.008). The major CT finding of COVID-19 patients was ground-glass opacities in both lungs, while in non-COVID-19 patients, consolidations combined with ground-glass opacities were more common in one lung than both lungs (p = 0.0001). CCR showed excellent performance in detecting abnormal shadows in patients with confirmed COVID-19. However, it has limited value in differentiating COVID-19 patients from non-COVID-19 patients. Through the typical epidemiological history, laboratory examinations, and clinical symptoms, combined with the distributive characteristics of shadows, CCR may be useful to identify patients with possible COVID-19. This will allow for the rapid identification and quarantine of patients.

Portable Chest Radiography Through Glass During COVID-19 Pandemic-Initial Experience in a Tertiary Care Center.

BACKGROUND: Portable chest radiograph for COVID-19 positive patients and persons under investigation can be acquired through glass doors or walls of isolation rooms to limit exposure to the pathogen and conserve resources. PURPOSE: To report our initial experience with acquiring portable chest radiographs through glass doors of isolation rooms. METHODS: Only 1 of 2 radiology technologist team members donned personal protective equipment and stayed inside the isolation room, while the second technologist and the radiography unit remained outside during the procedure. First hundred radiographs acquired through glass at the emergency department of our institute formed the "through glass radiograph" group. Hundred consecutive portable chest radiographs performed in a conventional manner formed the "conventional radiograph" group for comparison. Imaging database and feedback from operations leader were used to identify occurrences of a failed procedure. Suggestion of repeating the study and comments related to quality of the study were recorded from the reports of the staff radiologist. RESULTS: There was no instance of failed acquisition, nondiagnostic examination, or suggestion of repetition in both groups. No significant difference in the number of reports with quality related remarks (P > .05) was found between the 2 groups. Radiography through glass doors was associated with increased suboptimal positioning related remarks in radiology reports (P < .05). No significant association was identified among other comments about image quality. CONCLUSION: Our initial clinical experience suggests that the acquisition of portable chest radiographs through the glass doors of isolation rooms is technically feasible and results in diagnostic quality studies.

Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The respiratory illness caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to present diagnostic challenges. Our 2020 edition of this review showed thoracic (chest) imaging to be sensitive and moderately specific in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this update, we include new relevant studies, and have removed studies with case-control designs, and those not intended to be diagnostic test accuracy studies. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging (computed tomography (CT), X-ray and ultrasound) in people with suspected COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID-19 publications through to 30 September 2020. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of all designs, except for case-control, that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19 and that reported estimates of test accuracy or provided data from which we could compute estimates. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently and in duplicate screened articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 domain-list. We presented the results of estimated sensitivity and specificity using paired forest plots, and we summarised pooled estimates in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented the uncertainty of accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 51 studies with 19,775 participants suspected of having COVID-19, of whom 10,155 (51%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Forty-seven studies evaluated one imaging modality each, and four studies evaluated two imaging modalities each. All studies used RT-PCR as the reference standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19, with 47 studies using only RT-PCR and four studies using a combination of RT-PCR and other criteria (such as clinical signs, imaging tests, positive contacts, and follow-up phone calls) as the reference standard. Studies were conducted in Europe (33), Asia (13), North America (3) and South America (2); including only adults (26), all ages (21), children only (1), adults over 70 years (1), and unclear (2); in inpatients (2), outpatients (32), and setting unclear (17). Risk of bias was high or unclear in thirty-two (63%) studies with respect to participant selection, 40 (78%) studies with respect to reference standard, 30 (59%) studies with respect to index test, and 24 (47%) studies with respect to participant flow. For chest CT (41 studies, 16,133 participants, 8110 (50%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 56.3% to 100%, and specificity ranged from 25.4% to 97.4%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 87.9% (95% CI 84.6 to 90.6) and the pooled specificity was 80.0% (95% CI 74.9 to 84.3). There was no statistical evidence indicating that reference standard conduct and definition for index test positivity were sources of heterogeneity for CT studies. Nine chest CT studies (2807 participants, 1139 (41%) cases) used the COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) scoring system, which has five thresholds to define index test positivity. At a CO-RADS threshold of 5 (7 studies), the sensitivity ranged from 41.5% to 77.9% and the pooled sensitivity was 67.0% (95% CI 56.4 to 76.2); the specificity ranged from 83.5% to 96.2%; and the pooled specificity was 91.3% (95% CI 87.6 to 94.0). At a CO-RADS threshold of 4 (7 studies), the sensitivity ranged from 56.3% to 92.9% and the pooled sensitivity was 83.5% (95% CI 74.4 to 89.7); the specificity ranged from 77.2% to 90.4% and the pooled specificity was 83.6% (95% CI 80.5 to 86.4). For chest X-ray (9 studies, 3694 participants, 2111 (57%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 51.9% to 94.4% and specificity ranged from 40.4% to 88.9%. The pooled sensitivity of chest X-ray was 80.6% (95% CI 69.1 to 88.6) and the pooled specificity was 71.5% (95% CI 59.8 to 80.8). For ultrasound of the lungs (5 studies, 446 participants, 211 (47%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 68.2% to 96.8% and specificity ranged from 21.3% to 78.9%. The pooled sensitivity of ultrasound was 86.4% (95% CI 72.7 to 93.9) and the pooled specificity was 54.6% (95% CI 35.3 to 72.6). Based on an indirect comparison using all included studies, chest CT had a higher specificity than ultrasound. For indirect comparisons of chest CT and chest X-ray, or chest X-ray and ultrasound, the data did not show differences in specificity or sensitivity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that chest CT is sensitive and moderately specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Chest X-ray is moderately sensitive and moderately specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Ultrasound is sensitive but not specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Thus, chest CT and ultrasound may have more utility for excluding COVID-19 than for differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should pre-define positive imaging findings, include direct comparisons of the various modalities of interest in the same participant population, and implement improved reporting practices.

Portable Chest Radiography as an Exclusionary Test for Adverse Clinical Outcomes During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Chest radiography (CXR) often is performed in the acute setting to help understand the extent of respiratory disease in patients with COVID-19, but a clearly defined role for negative chest radiograph results in assessing patients has not been described. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is portable CXR an effective exclusionary test for future adverse clinical outcomes in patients suspected of having COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Charts of consecutive patients suspected of having COVID-19 at five EDs in New York City between March 19, 2020, and April 23, 2020, were reviewed. Patients were categorized based on absence of findings on initial CXR. The primary outcomes were hospital admission, mechanical ventilation, ARDS, and mortality. RESULTS: Three thousand two hundred forty-five adult patients, 474 (14.6%) with negative initial CXR results, were reviewed. Among all patients, negative initial CXR results were associated with a low probability of future adverse clinical outcomes, with negative likelihood ratios of 0.27 (95% CI, 0.23-0.31) for hospital admission, 0.24 (95% CI, 0.16-0.37) for mechanical ventilation, 0.19 (95% CI, 0.09-0.40) for ARDS, and 0.38 (95% CI, 0.29-0.51) for mortality. Among the subset of 955 patients younger than 65 years and with a duration of symptoms of at least 5 days, no patients with negative CXR results died, and the negative likelihood ratios were 0.17 (95% CI, 0.12-0.25) for hospital admission, 0.09 (95% CI, 0.02-0.36) for mechanical ventilation, and 0.09 (95% CI, 0.01-0.64) for ARDS. INTERPRETATION: Initial CXR in adult patients suspected of having COVID-19 is a strong exclusionary test for hospital admission, mechanical ventilation, ARDS, and mortality. The value of CXR as an exclusionary test for adverse clinical outcomes is highest among young adults, patients with few comorbidities, and those with a prolonged duration of symptoms.

[Spatial and temporal distribution and predictive value of chest CT scoring in patients with COVID-19].

Objective: To explore a modified CT scoring system, its feasibility for disease severity evaluation and its predictive value in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Methods: This study was a multi-center retrospective cohort study. Patients confirmed with COVID-19 were recruited in three medical centers located in Beijing, Wuhan and Nanchang from January 27, 2020 to March 8, 2020. Demographics, clinical data, and CT images were collected. CT were analyzed by two emergency physicians of more than ten years' work experience independently through a modified scoring system. Final score was determined by average score from the two reviewers if consensus was not reached. The lung was divided into 6 zones (upper, middle, and lower on both sides) by the level of trachea carina and the level of lower pulmonary veins. The target lesion types included ground-glass opacity (GGO), consolidation, overall lung involvement, and crazy-paving pattern. Bronchiectasis, cavity, pleural effusion, etc., were not included in CT reading and analysis because of low incidence. The reviewers evaluated the extent of the targeted patterns (GGO, consolidation) and overall affected lung parenchyma for each zone, using Likert scale, ranging from 0-4 (0=absent; 1=1%-25%; 2=26%-50%; 3=51%-75%; 4=76%-100%). Thus, GGO score, consolidation score, and overall lung involvement score were sum of 6 zones ranging from 0-24. For crazy-paving pattern, it was only coded as absent or present (0 or 1) for each zone and therefore ranging from 0-6. Results: A total of 197 patients from 3 medical centers and 522 CT scans entered final analysis. The median age of the patients was 64 years, and 54.8% were male. There were 76(38.8%) patients had hypertension and 30(15.3%) patients had diabetes mellitus. There were 75 of the patients classified as moderate cases, as well as 95 severe cases and 27 critical cases. As initial symptom, dry cough occurred in 170 patients, 134 patients had fever, and 125 patients had dyspnea. Reparatory rate, oxygen saturation, lymphocyte count and CURB 65 score on admission day varied among patients with different disease severity scale. There were 50 of the patients suffered from deterioration during hospital stay. The median time consumed for each CT by clinicians was 86.5 seconds. Cronbach's alpha for GGO, consolidation, crazy-paving pattern, and overall lung involvement between two clinicians were 0.809, 0.712, 0.678, and 0.906, respectively, showing good or excellent inter-rater correlation. There were 193 (98.0%) patients had GGO, 147 (74.6%) had consolidation, and 126(64.0%) had crazy-paving pattern throughout clinical course. Bilateral lung involvement was observed in 183(92.9%) patients. Median time of interval for CT scan in our study was 7 days so that the whole clinical course was divided into stages by week for further analysis. From the second week on, the CT scores of various types of lesions in severe or critically patients were higher than those of moderate cases. After the fifth week, the course of disease entered the recovery period. The CT score of the upper lung zones was lower than that of other zones in moderate and severe cases. Similar distribution was not observed in critical patients. For moderate cases, the ground glass opacity score at the second week had predictive value for the escalation of the severity classification during hospitalization. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.849, the best cut-off value was 5 points, with sensitivity of 84.2% and specificity of 75.0%. Conclusions: It is feasible for clinicians to use the modified semi-quantitative CT scoring system to evaluate patients with COVID-19. Severe/critical patients had higher scores for ground glass opacity, consolidation, crazy-paving pattern, and overall lung involvement than moderate cases. The ground glass opacity score in the second week had an optimal predictive value for escalation of disease severity during hospitalization in moderate patients on admission. The frequency of CT scan should be reduced after entering the recovery stage.

Family medicine residents' skill levels in emergency chest X-ray interpretation.

BACKGROUND: Family medicine physicians may encounter a wide variety of conditions, including acute and urgent cases. Considering the limited access to diagnostic investigations in primary care practice, chest X-ray remains the imaging modality of choice. The current study assessed the competency of family medicine residents in the interpretation of chest X-rays for emergency conditions and to compare it with that of diagnostic radiology residents, general practitioners, and medical interns. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to 600 physicians, including family medicine residents, medical interns, general practitioners, and diagnostic radiology residents. The study included some background information such as gender, years in practice, training type, interest in pulmonary medicine and diagnostic radiology, and having adequate training on the interpretation of chest X-rays. The survey had 10 chest X-ray cases with brief clinical information. Participants were asked to choose the most likely diagnosis and to rate their degree of confidence in the interpretation of the chest X-ray for each case. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 205 physicians (response rate = 34.2%). The overall diagnostic accuracy was 63.1% with a significant difference between family medicine and radiology residents (58.0% vs. 90.5%; P < 0.001). The COVID-19 pneumonia (85.4%) and pneumoperitoneum (80.5%) cases had the highest diagnostic accuracy scores. There was a significant correlation between the diagnostic confidence and accuracy (rs = 0.39; P < 0.001). Multivariable regression analysis revealed that being diagnostic radiology residents (odds ratio [OR]: 13.0; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.5-67.7) and having higher diagnostic confidence (OR: 2.2; 95% CI: 1.3-3.8) were the only independent predictors of achieving high diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSION: The competency of family medicine residents in the interpretation of chest X-ray for emergency conditions was far from optimal. The introduction of radiology training courses on emergency conditions seems imperative. Alternatively, the use of tele-radiology in primary healthcare centers should be considered.

Proof of Concept: Phantom Study to Ensure Quality and Safety of Portable Chest Radiography Through Glass During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Chest radiography is often used to detect lung involvement in patients with suspected pneumonia. Chest radiography through glass walls of an isolation room is a technique that could be immensely useful in the current COVID-19 pandemic. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to ensure quality and radiation safety while acquiring portable chest radiographs through the glass doors of isolation rooms using an adult anthropomorphic thorax phantom. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen chest radiographs were acquired utilizing different exposure factors without glass, through the smart glass, and through regular glass. Images were scored independently by 2 radiologists for quantum mottle and sharpness of anatomical structures using a 5-point Likert scale. Statistically significant differences in Likert scale scores and entrance surface dose (ESD) between images acquired without glass and through the smart and regular glass were tested. Interreader reliability was also evaluated. RESULTS: Compared with conventional radiography, equal or higher mean image quality scores (mottle and anatomical structures) were observed with the smart glass using 100 kVp at 12 mAs and 20 mAs and 125 kVp at 6.3 mAs (100 kVp at 2 mAs and 125 kVp at 3.2 mAs were used for conventional radiography observations). There was no statistically significant difference in the Likert scale scores for image quality and the entrance surface dose for radiographs acquired without glass, through the smart glass, and through regular glass. Backscatter from the smart glass was minimal at a distance of 3 m and was recorded as zero at a distance of 4 m from the x-ray tube outside an isolation room. CONCLUSIONS: Good-quality portable chest radiographs can be obtained safely through the smart glass doors of the isolation room. However, this technique does result in minor backscatter radiation. Modifications in the exposure factors (such as increasing milliampere seconds) may be required to optimize image quality while using this technique.

Analyzing inter-reader variability affecting deep ensemble learning for COVID-19 detection in chest radiographs.

Data-driven deep learning (DL) methods using convolutional neural networks (CNNs) demonstrate promising performance in natural image computer vision tasks. However, their use in medical computer vision tasks faces several limitations, viz., (i) adapting to visual characteristics that are unlike natural images; (ii) modeling random noise during training due to stochastic optimization and backpropagation-based learning strategy; (iii) challenges in explaining DL black-box behavior to support clinical decision-making; and (iv) inter-reader variability in the ground truth (GT) annotations affecting learning and evaluation. This study proposes a systematic approach to address these limitations through application to the pandemic-caused need for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) detection using chest X-rays (CXRs). Specifically, our contribution highlights significant benefits obtained through (i) pretraining specific to CXRs in transferring and fine-tuning the learned knowledge toward improving COVID-19 detection performance; (ii) using ensembles of the fine-tuned models to further improve performance over individual constituent models; (iii) performing statistical analyses at various learning stages for validating results; (iv) interpreting learned individual and ensemble model behavior through class-selective relevance mapping (CRM)-based region of interest (ROI) localization; and, (v) analyzing inter-reader variability and ensemble localization performance using Simultaneous Truth and Performance Level Estimation (STAPLE) methods. We find that ensemble approaches markedly improved classification and localization performance, and that inter-reader variability and performance level assessment helps guide algorithm design and parameter optimization. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to construct ensembles, perform ensemble-based disease ROI localization, and analyze inter-reader variability and algorithm performance for COVID-19 detection in CXRs.

Chest x-ray in the COVID-19 pandemic: Radiologists' real-world reader performance.

PURPOSE: To report real-world diagnostic performance of chest x-ray (CXR) readings during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study we enrolled all patients presenting to the emergency department of a Milan-based university hospital from February 24th to April 8th 2020 who underwent nasopharyngeal swab for reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and anteroposterior bedside CXR within 12 h. A composite reference standard combining RT-PCR results with phone-call-based anamnesis was obtained. Radiologists were grouped by CXR reading experience (Group-1, >10 years; Group-2, <10 years), diagnostic performance indexes were calculated for each radiologist and for the two groups. RESULTS: Group-1 read 435 CXRs (77.0 % disease prevalence): sensitivity was 89.0 %, specificity 66.0 %, accuracy 83.7 %. Group-2 read 100 CXRs (73.0 % prevalence): sensitivity was 89.0 %, specificity 40.7 %, accuracy 76.0 %. During the first half of the outbreak (195 CXRs, 66.7 % disease prevalence), overall sensitivity was 80.8 %, specificity 67.7 %, accuracy 76.4 %, Group-1 sensitivity being similar to Group-2 (80.6 % versus 81.5 %, respectively) but higher specificity (74.0 % versus 46.7 %) and accuracy (78.4 % versus 69.0 %). During the second half (340 CXRs, 81.8 % prevalence), overall sensitivity increased to 92.8 %, specificity dropped to 53.2 %, accuracy increased to 85.6 %, this pattern mirrored in both groups, with decreased specificity (Group-1, 58.0 %; Group-2, 33.3 %) but increased sensitivity (92.7 % and 93.5 %) and accuracy (86.5 % and 81.0 %, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Real-world CXR diagnostic performance during the COVID-19 pandemic showed overall high sensitivity with higher specificity for more experienced radiologists. The increase in accuracy over time strengthens CXR role as a first line examination in suspected COVID-19 patients.

Dose-optimised chest computed tomography for diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) - Evaluation of image quality and diagnostic impact.

OBJECTIVES: The detection of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has varying sensitivity. Computed tomography (CT) of the chest can verify infection in patients with clinical symptoms and a negative test result, accelerating treatment and actions to prevent further contagion. However, CT employs ionising radiation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate protocol settings, associated radiation exposure, image quality and diagnostic performance of a low-dose CT protocol in a university hospital setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Chest CT examinations were performed on a single scanner (Somatom Definition Edge, Siemens Healthineers, Germany) in 105 symptomatic patients (60 male, 45 female). Images were evaluated with regard to protocol parameters, image quality, radiation exposure and diagnostic accuracy. Serial RT-PCR served as the standard of reference. Based on this reference standard sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of CT with 95% confidence interval were calculated. RESULTS: The mean effective dose was 1.3 ± 0.4 mSv (0.7-2.9 mSv) for the patient cohort (mean age 66.6 ± 16.7 years (19-94 years), mean body mass index (BMI) 26.6 ± 5.3 kg m-2 (16-46 kg/m2)). A sensitivity of 100 [95% CI: 82-100]%, a specificity of 78 [95% CI: 68-86]%, a positive predictive value of 50 [95% CI: 33-67]% and a negative predictive value of 100 [95% CI: 95-100]% were obtained. No COVID-19 diagnoses were missed by CT. Image noise did not strongly correlate with BMI or patient diameter and was rated as average. CONCLUSIONS: We presented a robust imaging procedure with a chest CT protocol for confident diagnosis of COVID-19. Even for an overweight patient cohort, an associated radiation exposure of only 1.3 ± 0.4 mSv was achieved with sufficient diagnostic quality to exclude COVID-19.

Technique, radiation safety and image quality for chest X-ray imaging through glass and in mobile settings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 has led to preparations within our hospital for an expected surge of patients. This included developing a technique to perform mobile chest X-ray imaging through glass, allowing the X-ray unit to remain outside of the patient's room, effectively reducing the cleaning time associated with disinfecting equipment. The technique also reduced the infection risk of radiographers. We assessed the attenuation of different types of glass in the hospital and the technique parameters required to account for the glass filtration and additional source to image distance (SID). Radiation measurements were undertaken in a simulated set-up to determine the appropriate position for staff inside and outside the room to ensure occupational doses were kept as low as reasonably achievable. Image quality was scored and technical parameter information collated. The alternative to imaging through glass is the standard portable chest X-ray within the room. The radiation safety requirements for this standard technique were also assessed. Image quality was found to be acceptable or borderline in 90% of the images taken through glass and the average patient dose was 0.02 millisieverts (mSv) per image. The majority (67%) of images were acquired at 110 kV, with an average 5.5 mAs and with SID ranging from 180 to 300 cm. With staff positioned at greater than 1 m from the patient and at more than 1 m laterally from the tube head outside the room to minimise scatter exposure, air kerma values did not exceed 0.5 microgray (µGy) per image. This method has been implemented successfully.

Recommendations of the Thoracic Imaging Section of the German Radiological Society for clinical application of chest imaging and structured CT reporting in the COVID-19 pandemic. / Empfehlungen der AG Thoraxdiagnostik der Deutschen Röntgengesellschaft zur klinischen Anwendung der Thoraxbildgebung und strukturierten CT-Befundung bei COVID-19-Pandemie.

This information provided by the Thoracic Imaging Section of the German Radiological Society is intended to give physicians recommendations on the use of thoracic imaging procedures in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic. It represents the consensus of the authors based on the previous scientific knowledge and is intended to provide guidance for unified, structured CT reporting if COVID-19 pneumonia is suspected. The recommendations presented correspond to state of knowledge at the time of print and will be updated according to the results of ongoing and future scientific studies. KEY POINTS:: · COVID-19. · chest imaging. · German Radiological Society. CITATION FORMAT: · Vogel-Claussen J, Ley-Zaporozhan J, Agarwal P et al. Recommendations of the Thoracic Imaging Section of the German Radiological Society for clinical application of chest imaging and structured CT reporting in the COVID-19 pandemic. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2020; DOI: 10.1055/a-1174-8378.