Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 49
Filter
1.
Minerva Anestesiol ; 88(4): 308-313, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1856580

ABSTRACT

Lung ultrasonography provides relevant information on morphological and functional changes occurring in the lungs. However, it correlates weakly with pulmonary congestion and extra vascular lung water. Moreover, there is lack of consensus on scoring systems and acquisition protocols. The automation of this technique may provide promising easy-to-use clinical tools to reduce inter- and intra-observer variability and to standardize scores, allowing faster data collection without increased costs and patients risks.


Subject(s)
Computers , Lung , Humans , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Observer Variation , Reproducibility of Results , Ultrasonography
2.
J Hand Surg Asian Pac Vol ; 27(2): 261-266, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1840617

ABSTRACT

Background: Management of hand trauma has evolved to incorporate assessment, treatment and rehabilitation of patients in a 'one-stop' clinic on initial presentation. Our aim was to evaluate the effect of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the choice of treatment for hand fractures using inter-rater agreement between surgeons. Methods: All patients with hand fractures during the COVID-19 lockdown from March to May 2020 were included in the study. Two experienced hand surgeons blinded to management and outcomes independently reviewed radiographic images and relevant clinical history to provide their opinion on optimal treatment. Weighted kappa analysis was performed to determine concordance and inter-rater agreement between the two surgeons and actual management. Results: The study included 82 patients (62 men and 20 women) with a mean age of 40.3 (SD 19.7). The injuries occurred most often at home following an accident (34%) or a fall (28%). Fractures involved the metacarpals in 29 patients and the distal phalanx in 22 patients. Thirty-five patients underwent surgery, whereas 47 were managed conservatively. Overall agreement between actual management and consultant A and consultant B was moderate (κ = 0.55, p < 0.0001 and κ = 0.63, p < 0.0001, respectively). Subgroup analysis showed a weak agreement between actual management of metacarpal fractures and consultant A and consultant B (κ = 0.22, p = 0.29 and κ = 0.47, p = 0.02, respectively). Inter-rater agreement was substantial for management of metacarpal fractures (κ = 0.73, p < 0.0001), but weak for distal phalanx fractures (κ = 0.29, p = 0.03). Conclusion: Our study has shown that overall management of hand fractures remained optimised throughout the pandemic. However, a lack of concordance was observed in the management of metacarpals. Level of Evidence: Level IV (Therapeutic).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Fractures, Bone , Hand Deformities , Adult , Communicable Disease Control , Female , Fractures, Bone/diagnostic imaging , Fractures, Bone/epidemiology , Fractures, Bone/surgery , Humans , Male , Observer Variation , Reproducibility of Results
3.
Clin Imaging ; 86: 13-19, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1803772

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the quality of outside hospital imaging and associated reports submitted to us for reinterpretation related to clinical care at our tertiary cancer center. We compared the initial study interpretations to that of interpretations performed by subspecialty-trained abdominal radiologists at our center and whether this resulted in a change in inpatient treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed an institutional review board-approved retrospective single-institution study of 915 consecutive outside computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) abdominal imaging studies that had been submitted to our institution between August 1, 2020 and November 30, 2020. The assessed parameters included the quality and accuracy of the report, the technical quality of the imaging compared to that at our institution, the appropriateness of the imaging for staging or restaging, usage of oral and IV contrast, and CT slice thickness. Clinical notes, pathologic findings, and subsequent imaging were used to establish an accurate diagnosis and determine the effect on clinical treatment. Discrepancies between the initial and secondary interpretations were identified independently by a panel of radiologists to assess changes in treatment. The impact of discrepancies on treatment was evaluated based on current treatment guidelines. RESULTS: Of 744 CT (81%) and 171 MR (19%) outside imaging studies, 65% had suboptimal quality compared to the images at our institution, and 31% were inappropriate for oncological care purposes. Only 21% of CT studies had optimal slice thickness of <3 mm. Of 375 (41%) outside reports, 131 (34%) had discrepancies between secondary and initial interpretations. Of the 88 confirmed discrepant studies, 42 patients (48%) had a change in treatment based on the secondary interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: Imaging studies from outside institutions have variable image quality and are often inadequate for oncologic imaging. The secondary interpretations by subspecialty-trained radiologists resulted in treatment change.


Subject(s)
Cancer Care Facilities , Neoplasms , Humans , Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Neoplasms/therapy , Observer Variation , Radiologists , Referral and Consultation , Retrospective Studies
4.
Gac Med Mex ; 157(4): 391-396, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1705708

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: By the end 2019 there was an outbreak of pneumonia caused by a new coronavirus, a disease that was called coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Computed tomography (CT) has played an important role in the diagnosis of COVID-19 patients. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate inter-observer variability with five scales proposed for measuring the extent of COVID-19 pneumonia on tomography. METHODS: Thirty five initial chest CT scans of patients who attended respiratory triage for suspected COVID-19 pneumonia were analyzed. Three radiologists classified the tomographic images according to the severity scales proposed by Yang (1), Yuan (2), Chun (3), Wang (4) and Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias-Chung-Pan (5). The percentage of agreement between the evaluators for each scale was calculated using the intra-class correlation index. RESULTS: In most patients were five pulmonary lobes compromised (77.1% of the patients). Scales 1, 2, 4 and 5 showed an intra-class correlation > 0.91 (p < 0.0001), with agreement thus being almost perfect. CONCLUSIONS: Scale 4 (proposed by Wang) showed the best inter-observer agreement, with a coefficient of 0.964 (p = 0.001).


INTRODUCCIÓN: A finales de 2019 se presentó un brote de neumonía causada por un nuevo coronavirus, enfermedad a la que se denominó COVID-19. La tomografía computarizada ha desempeñado un papel importante en el diagnóstico de los pacientes con COVID-19. OBJETIVO: Demostrar la variabilidad interobservador con cinco escalas propuestas para la medición de la extensión de la neumonía ocasionada por COVID-19 mediante tomografía. MÉTODOS: Se analizaron 35 tomografías de tórax iniciales de pacientes que asistieron al triaje respiratorio por sospecha de neumonía por COVID-19. Tres radiólogos realizaron la clasificación de las imágenes tomográficas de acuerdo con las escalas de severidad propuestas por Yang (1), Yuan (2), Chun (3), Wang (4) e INER-Chung-Pan (5). Se calculó el porcentaje de concordancia entre los evaluadores para cada escala con el índice de correlación intraclase. RESULTADOS: La mayoría de los pacientes presentó afección de cinco lóbulos pulmonares (77.1 % de los pacientes). Las escalas 1, 2, 4 y 5 mostraron una correlación intraclase > 0.91, con p < 0.0001, por lo que la concordancia fue casi perfecta. CONCLUSIONES: La escala 4 (de Wang) mostró la mejor concordancia interobservador, con un coeficiente de 0.964 (p = 0.001).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pneumonia , Humans , Observer Variation , Pneumonia/diagnostic imaging , Pneumonia/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Tomography, X-Ray Computed
5.
BMC Med Imaging ; 21(1): 192, 2021 12 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1571744

ABSTRACT

AIM: This study is to compare the lung image quality between shelter hospital CT (CT Ark) and ordinary CT scans (Brilliance 64) scans. METHODS: The patients who received scans with CT Ark or Brilliance 64 CT were enrolled. Their lung images were divided into two groups according to the scanner. The objective evaluation methods of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were used. The subjective evaluation methods including the evaluation of the fine structure under the lung window and the evaluation of the general structure under the mediastinum window were compared. Kappa method was used to assess the reliability of the subjective evaluation. The subjective evaluation results were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. SNR and CNR were tested using independent sample t tests. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in somatotype of enrolled subjects. The Kappa value between the two observers was between 0.68 and 0.81, indicating good consistency. For subjective evaluation results, the rank sum test P value of fine structure evaluation and general structure evaluation by the two observers was ≥ 0.05. For objective evaluation results, SNR and CNR between the two CT scanners were significantly different (P<0.05). Notably, the absolute values ​​of SNR and CNR of the CT Ark were larger than Brilliance 64 CT scanner. CONCLUSION: CT Ark is fully capable of scanning the lungs of the COVID-19 patients during the epidemic in the shelter hospital.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Mobile Health Units/standards , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/instrumentation , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/standards , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , China/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Observer Variation , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Signal-To-Noise Ratio
6.
Am J Speech Lang Pathol ; 30(6): 2446-2455, 2021 11 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1545674

ABSTRACT

Purpose This study assessed the reliability and accuracy of auditory-perceptual voice evaluations by experienced clinicians via telepractice platforms. Method Voice samples from 20 individuals were recorded after transmission via telepractice platforms. Twenty experienced clinicians (10 speech-language pathologists, 10 laryngologists) evaluated the samples for dysphonia percepts (overall severity, roughness, breathiness, and strain) using a modified Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice. Reliability was calculated as the mean of squared differences between repeated ratings (intrarater agreement), and between individual and group mean ratings (interrater agreement). Repeated measures analyses of variance were constructed to measure effects of transmission condition (e.g., original recording, WebEx, Zoom), dysphonia percept, and their interaction on intrarater agreement, interrater agreement, and average ratings. Significant effects were evaluated with post hoc Tukey's tests. Results There were significant effects of transmission condition, percept, and their interaction on average ratings, and a significant effect of percept on interrater agreement. Post hoc testing revealed statistically, but not clinically, significant differences in average roughness ratings across transmission conditions, and significant differences in interrater agreement for several percepts. Overall severity had the highest agreement and strain had the lowest. Conclusion Telepractice transmission does not substantially reduce reliability or accuracy of auditory-perceptual voice evaluations by experienced clinicians.


Subject(s)
Dysphonia , Voice , Dysphonia/diagnosis , Humans , Observer Variation , Reproducibility of Results , Voice Quality
7.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 21807, 2021 11 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1506761

ABSTRACT

In this study, we compare the predictive value of clinical scoring systems that are already in use in patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the Brescia-COVID Respiratory Severity Scale (BCRSS), Quick SOFA (qSOFA), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), Multilobular infiltration, hypo-Lymphocytosis, Bacterial coinfection, Smoking history, hyper-Tension, and Age (MuLBSTA) and scoring system for reactive hemophagocytic syndrome (HScore), for determining the severity of the disease. Our aim in this study is to determine which scoring system is most useful in determining disease severity and to guide clinicians. We classified the patients into two groups according to the stage of the disease (severe and non-severe) and adopted interim guidance of the World Health Organization. Severe cases were divided into a group of surviving patients and a deceased group according to the prognosis. According to admission values, the BCRSS, qSOFA, SOFA, MuLBSTA, and HScore were evaluated at admission using the worst parameters available in the first 24 h. Of the 417 patients included in our study, 46 (11%) were in the severe group, while 371 (89%) were in the non-severe group. Of these 417 patients, 230 (55.2%) were men. The median (IQR) age of all patients was 44 (25) years. In multivariate logistic regression analyses, BRCSS in the highest tertile (HR 6.1, 95% CI 2.105-17.674, p = 0.001) was determined as an independent predictor of severe disease in cases of COVID-19. In multivariate analyses, qSOFA was also found to be an independent predictor of severe COVID-19 (HR 4.757, 95% CI 1.438-15.730, p = 0.011). The area under the curve (AUC) of the BRCSS, qSOFA, SOFA, MuLBSTA, and HScore was 0.977, 0.961, 0.958, 0.860, and 0.698, respectively. Calculation of the BRCSS and qSOFA at the time of hospital admission can predict critical clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19, and their predictive value is superior to that of HScore, MuLBSTA, and SOFA. Our prediction is that early interventions for high-risk patients, with early identification of high-risk group using BRCSS and qSOFA, may improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , Adult , Aged , Area Under Curve , Coinfection/diagnosis , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Lymphocytosis , Male , Middle Aged , Observer Variation , Organ Dysfunction Scores , Patient Admission , Predictive Value of Tests , Prognosis , Regression Analysis , Respiration , Respiration Disorders , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Smoking , Treatment Outcome
8.
AJR Am J Roentgenol ; 217(5): 1093-1102, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1484970

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND. Previous studies compared CT findings of COVID-19 pneumonia with those of other infections; however, to our knowledge, no studies to date have included noninfectious organizing pneumonia (OP) for comparison. OBJECTIVE. The objectives of this study were to compare chest CT features of COVID-19, influenza, and OP using a multireader design and to assess the performance of radiologists in distinguishing between these conditions. METHODS. This retrospective study included 150 chest CT examinations in 150 patients (mean [± SD] age, 58 ± 16 years) with a diagnosis of COVID-19, influenza, or non-infectious OP (50 randomly selected abnormal CT examinations per diagnosis). Six thoracic radiologists independently assessed CT examinations for 14 individual CT findings and for Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) COVID-19 category and recorded a favored diagnosis. The CT characteristics of the three diagnoses were compared using random-effects models; the diagnostic performance of the readers was assessed. RESULTS. COVID-19 pneumonia was significantly different (p < .05) from influenza pneumonia for seven of 14 chest CT findings, although it was different (p < .05) from OP for four of 14 findings (central or diffuse distribution was seen in 10% and 7% of COVID-19 cases, respectively, vs 20% and 21% of OP cases, respectively; unilateral distribution was seen in 1% of COVID-19 cases vs 7% of OP cases; non-tree-in-bud nodules was seen in 32% of COVID-19 cases vs 53% of OP cases; tree-in-bud nodules were seen in 6% of COVID-19 cases vs 14% of OP cases). A total of 70% of cases of COVID-19, 33% of influenza cases, and 47% of OP cases had typical findings according to RSNA COVID-19 category assessment (p < .001). The mean percentage of correct favored diagnoses compared with actual diagnoses was 44% for COVID-19, 29% for influenza, and 39% for OP. The mean diagnostic accuracy of favored diagnoses was 70% for COVID-19 pneumonia and 68% for both influenza and OP. CONCLUSION. CT findings of COVID-19 substantially overlap with those of influenza and, to a greater extent, those of OP. The diagnostic accuracy of the radiologists was low in a study sample that contained equal proportions of these three types of pneumonia. CLINICAL IMPACT. Recognized challenges in diagnosing COVID-19 by CT are furthered by the strong overlap observed between the appearances of COVID-19 and OP on CT. This challenge may be particularly evident in clinical settings in which there are substantial proportions of patients with potential causes of OP such as ongoing cancer therapy or autoimmune conditions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , Cryptogenic Organizing Pneumonia/diagnostic imaging , Influenza, Human/diagnostic imaging , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnostic imaging , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Diagnosis, Differential , Female , Humans , Influenza, Human/virology , Male , Massachusetts , Middle Aged , Observer Variation , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Radiography, Thoracic , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
9.
Abdom Radiol (NY) ; 46(11): 5095-5104, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1465846

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To assess inter-reader agreement of key features from the SAR-AGA recommendations for the interpretation and reporting of MRE in adult patients with CD, focusing on the impact of radiologist experience on inter-reader agreement of CD phenotypes. METHODS: Two experienced and two less-experienced radiologists retrospectively evaluated 99 MRE in CD patients (50 initial MRE, 49 follow-up MRE) performed from 1/1/2019 to 3/20/2020 for the presence of active bowel inflammation (stomach, proximal small bowel, ileum, colon), stricture, probable stricture, penetrating disease, and perianal disease. The MRE protocol did not include dedicated perianal sequences. Inter-rater agreement was determined for each imaging feature using prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa and compared by experience level. RESULTS: All readers had almost-perfect inter-reader agreement (κ > 0.90) for penetrating disease, abscess, and perianal abscess in all 99 CD patients. All readers had strong inter-reader agreement (κ: 0.80-0.90) in 99 CD patients for active ileum inflammation, proximal small bowel inflammation, and stricture. Less-experienced readers had significantly lower inter-reader agreement for active ileum inflammation on initial than follow-up MRE (κ 0.68 versus 0.96, p = 0.018) and for strictures on follow-up than initial MRE (κ 0.76 versus 1.0, p = 0.027). Experienced readers had significantly lower agreement for perianal fistula on follow-up than initial MRE (κ: 0.55 versus 0.92, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: There was strong to almost-perfect inter-reader agreement for key CD phenotypes described in the SAR-AGA consensus recommendations including active ileum and proximal small bowel inflammation, stricture, penetrating disease, abscess, and perianal abscess. Areas of lower inter-reader agreement could be targeted for future education efforts to further standardize CD MRE reporting. Dedicated perianal sequences should be included on follow-up MRE.


Subject(s)
Crohn Disease , Radiology , Adult , Consensus , Crohn Disease/diagnostic imaging , Humans , Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Observer Variation , Phenotype , Radiologists , Reproducibility of Results , Retrospective Studies , United States
10.
PLoS One ; 16(9): e0257183, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1410674

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: While potentially timesaving, there is no program to automatically transform diagnosis codes of the ICD-10 German modification (ICD-10-GM) into the injury severity score (ISS). OBJECTIVE: To develop a mapping method from ICD-10-GM into ICD-10 clinical modification (ICD-10-CM) to calculate the abbreviated injury scale (AIS) and ISS of each patient using the ICDPIC-R and to compare the manually and automatically calculated scores. METHODS: Between January 2019 and June 2021, the most severe AIS of each body region and the ISS were manually calculated using medical documentation and radiology reports of all major trauma patients of a German level I trauma centre. The ICD-10-GM codes of these patients were exported from the electronic medical data system SAP, and a Java program was written to transform these into ICD-10-CM codes. Afterwards, the ICDPIC-R was used to automatically generate the most severe AIS of each body region and the ISS. The automatically and manually determined ISS and AIS scores were then tested for equivalence. RESULTS: Statistical analysis revealed that the manually and automatically calculated ISS were significantly equivalent over the entire patient cohort. Further sub-group analysis, however, showed that equivalence could only be demonstrated for patients with an ISS between 16 and 24. Likewise, the highest AIS scores of each body region were not equal in the manually and automatically calculated group. CONCLUSION: Though achieving mapping results highly comparable to previous mapping methods of ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes, it is not unrestrictedly possible to automatically calculate the AIS and ISS using ICD-10-GM codes.


Subject(s)
Injury Severity Score , International Classification of Diseases , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Automation , Child , Child, Preschool , Emergency Service, Hospital , Hip Fractures/diagnosis , Hip Fractures/pathology , Humans , Middle Aged , Observer Variation , Young Adult
11.
Lab Med ; 52(5): e137-e146, 2021 Sep 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1387950

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To describe a cross-institutional approach to verify the Abbott ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 antibody assay and to document the kinetics of the serological response. METHODS: We conducted analytical performance evaluation studies using the Abbott ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 antibody assay on 5 Abbott ARCHITECT i2000 automated analyzers at 2 academic medical centers. RESULTS: Within-run and between-run coefficients of variance (CVs) for the antibody assay did not exceed 5.6% and 8.6%, respectively, for each institution. Quantitative and qualitative results agreed for lithium heparin plasma, EDTA-plasma and serum specimen types. Results for all SARS-CoV-2 IgG-positive and -negative specimens were concordant among analyzers except for 1 specimen at 1 institution. Qualitative and quantitative agreement was observed for specimens exchanged between institutions. All patients had detectable antibodies by day 10 from symptom onset and maintained seropositivity throughout specimen procurement. CONCLUSIONS: The analytical performance characteristics of the Abbott ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 antibody assay within and between 2 academic medical center clinical laboratories were acceptable for widespread clinical-laboratory use.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 Serological Testing/standards , COVID-19/diagnosis , Immunoassay/standards , Immunoglobulin G/blood , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Academic Medical Centers , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Observer Variation , Reproducibility of Results , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Sensitivity and Specificity , Virginia
12.
Diagn Interv Radiol ; 27(5): 615-620, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1329195

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the use of the COVID-19 reporting and data system (CO-RADS) among radiologists and the diagnostic performance of this system. METHODS: Four radiologists retrospectively evaluated the chest CT examinations of 178 patients. The study included 143 patients with positive reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test results and 35 patients whose RT-PCR tests were negative but whose clinical and/or radiological findings were consistent with COVID-19. Fleiss' kappa (κ) values were calculated, and individual observers' scores were compared. To investigate diagnostic efficiency, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated for each interpreter. RESULTS: The interpreters were in full agreement on 574 of 712 (80.6%) evaluations. The common Fleiss' κ value of all the radiologists combined was 0.712 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.692-0.769). A reliable prediction on the basis of RT-PCR and clinical findings indicated the mean area under the curve (AUC) of Fleiss' κ value as 0.89 (95% CI 0.708-0.990). General interpreter agreement was found to range from moderate to good. CONCLUSION: The interpreter agreement for CO-RADS categories 1 and 5 was reasonably good. We conclude that this scoring system will make a valuable contribution to efforts in COVID-19 diagnosis. CO-RADS can also be of significant value for the diagnosis and treatment of the disease in cases with false-negative PCR results.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Radiology , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , Observer Variation , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
13.
Emerg Radiol ; 28(6): 1045-1054, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1321761

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To measure the diagnostic accuracy and inter-observer agreement with the use of COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) for detection of COVID-19 on CT chest imaging. METHODS: This retrospective study included 164 consecutive patients with clinical suspicion of COVID-19 in whom a CT chest examination was performed at a single institution between April 2020 and July 2020. Of them, 101 patients was RT-PCR positive for COVID-19. Six readers with varying radiological experience (two each of chest radiologists, general radiologists, and radiologists in training) independently assigned a CO-RADS assessment category for each CT chest study. The Fleiss' K was used to quantify inter-observer agreement. The inter-observer agreement was also assessed based on the duration of onset of symptoms to CT scan. ROC curve analysis was used to determine the diagnostic accuracy of CO-RADS. The area under curve was calculated to determine the reader accuracy for detection of COVID-19 lung involvement with RT-PCR as reference standards. The data sets were plotted in ROC space, and Youden's J statistic was calculated to determine the threshold cut-off CO-RADS category for COVID-19 positivity. RESULTS: There was overall moderate inter-observer agreement between all readers (Fleiss' K 0.54 [95% CI 0.54, 0.54]), with substantial agreement among chest radiologists (Fleiss' K 0.68 [95% CI 0.67, 0.68]), general radiologists (Fleiss' K 0.61 [95% CI 0.61, 0.61]), and moderate agreement among radiologists-in-training (Fleiss' K 0.56 [95% CI 0.56, 0.56]). There was overall moderate inter-observer agreement in early disease (stages 1 and 2), with cumulative Fleiss' K 0.45 [95% CI 0.45, 0.45]). The overall AUC for CO-RADS lexicon scheme to accurately diagnose COVID-19 yielded 0.92 (95% CI 0.91, 0.94) with strong concordance within and between groups, of chests radiologists with AUC of 0.91 (95% CI 0.88, 0.94), general radiologists with AUC 0.96 (95% CI 0.94, 0.98), and radiologists in training with AUC of 0.90 (95% CI 0.87, 0.94). For detecting COVID-19, ROC curve analysis yielded CO-RADS > 3 as the cut-off threshold with sensitivity 90% (95% CI 0.88, 0.93), and specificity of 87% (95% CI 0.83, 0.91). CONCLUSION: Readers across different levels of experience could accurately identify COVID-19 positive patients using the CO-RADS lexicon with moderate inter-observer agreement and high diagnostic accuracy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Observer Variation , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Tomography, X-Ray Computed
14.
Med Sci Monit ; 27: e931277, 2021 Jul 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1314973

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND The chest X-ray is the most available imaging modality enabling semi-quantitative evaluation of pulmonary involvement. Parametric evaluation of chest radiographs in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection is crucial for triage and therapeutic management. The CXR Score (Brixia Score), SARI CXR Severity Scoring System, and Radiographic Assessment of Lung Edema (RALE), proposed to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 infiltration of the lungs, were analyzed for interobserver agreement. MATERIAL AND METHODS This study analyzed 200 chest X-rays from 200 consecutive patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalized at the Central Clinical Hospital of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration in Warsaw. Radiographs were evaluated by 2 radiologists according to 3 scales: SARI, RALE, and CXR Score. RESULTS The overall interobserver agreement for SARI ratings was good (kappa=0.755; 95% CI, 0.817-0.694), for RALE scale assessments it was very good (kappa=0.818; 95% CI, 0.844-0.793), and for CXR scale assessments it was very good (kappa=0.844; 95% CI, 0.846-0.841). A moderate correlation was found between the radiological image assessed using each of the scales and the clinical condition of the patient in MEWS (Modified Early Warning Score) (r=0.425-0.591). CONCLUSIONS The analyzed scales are characterized by good or very good interobserver agreement of assessments of the extent of pulmonary infiltration. Since the CXR Score showed the strongest correlation with the clinical condition of the patient as expressed using the MEWS scale, it is the preferred scale for chest radiograph assessment of patients with COVID-19 in the light of data provided.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , Lung/pathology , Observer Variation , Radiography , Humans , Retrospective Studies
15.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(21): e26034, 2021 May 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1242121

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: To determine the role of ultra-low dose chest computed tomography (uld CT) compared to chest radiographs in patients with laboratory-confirmed early stage SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.Chest radiographs and uld CT of 12 consecutive suspected SARS-CoV-2 patients performed up to 48 hours from hospital admission were reviewed by 2 radiologists. Dosimetry and descriptive statistics of both modalities were analyzed.On uld CT, parenchymal abnormalities compatible with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia were detected in 10/12 (83%) patients whereas on chest X-ray in, respectively, 8/12 (66%) and 5/12 (41%) patients for reader 1 and 2. The average increment of diagnostic performance of uld CT compared to chest X-ray was 29%. The average effective dose was, respectively, of 0.219 and 0.073 mSv.Uld CT detects substantially more lung injuries in symptomatic patients with suspected early stage SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia compared to chest radiographs, with a significantly better inter-reader agreement, at the cost of a slightly higher equivalent radiation dose.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Radiography, Thoracic/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Observer Variation , Predictive Value of Tests , RNA, Viral/isolation & purification , Radiation Dosage , Radiography, Thoracic/adverse effects , Radiography, Thoracic/methods , Radiometry/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/adverse effects , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods
16.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 10678, 2021 05 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1238016

ABSTRACT

With an urgent need for bedside imaging of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), this study's main goal was to assess inter- and intraobserver agreement in lung ultrasound (LUS) of COVID-19 patients. In this single-center study we prospectively acquired and evaluated 100 recorded ten-second cine-loops in confirmed COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) patients. All loops were rated by ten observers with different subspeciality backgrounds for four times by each observer (400 loops overall) in a random sequence using a web-based rating tool. We analyzed inter- and intraobserver variability for specific pathologies and a semiquantitative LUS score. Interobserver agreement for both, identification of specific pathologies and assignment of LUS scores was fair to moderate (e.g., LUS score 1 Fleiss' κ = 0.27; subpleural consolidations Fleiss' κ = 0.59). Intraobserver agreement was mostly moderate to substantial with generally higher agreement for more distinct findings (e.g., lowest LUS score 0 vs. highest LUS score 3 (median Fleiss' κ = 0.71 vs. 0.79) or air bronchograms (median Fleiss' κ = 0.72)). Intraobserver consistency was relatively low for intermediate LUS scores (e.g. LUS Score 1 median Fleiss' κ = 0.52). We therefore conclude that more distinct LUS findings (e.g., air bronchograms, subpleural consolidations) may be more suitable for disease monitoring, especially with more than one investigator and that training material used for LUS in point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) should pay refined attention to areas such as B-line quantification and differentiation of intermediate LUS scores.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Point-of-Care Systems , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Monitoring, Physiologic , Observer Variation , Prospective Studies , Ultrasonography
17.
Acad Radiol ; 28(10): 1331-1338, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1225101

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the chest CT and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 pneumonia and H1N1 influenza, and explore the radiologist diagnosis differences between COVID-19 and influenza. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study included a total of 43 COVID-19-confirmed patients (24 men and 19 women, 49.90 ± 18.70 years) and 41 influenza-confirmed patients (17 men and 24 women, 61.53 ± 19.50 years). Afterwards, the chest CT findings were recorded and 3 radiologists recorded their diagnoses of COVID-19 or of H1N1 influenza based on the CT findings. RESULTS: The most frequent clinical symptom in patients with COVID-19 and H1N1 pneumonia were dyspnea (96.6%) and cough (62.5%), respectively. The CT findings showed that the COVID-19 group was characterized by GGO (88.1%), while the influenza group had features such as GGO (68.4%) and consolidation (66.7%). Compared to the influenza group, the COVID-19 group was more likely to have GGO (88.1% vs. 68.4%, p = 0.032), subpleural sparing (69.0% vs. 7.7%, p <0.001) and subpleural band (50.0% vs. 20.5%, p = 0.006), but less likely to have pleural effusion (4.8% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.001). The agreement rate between the 3 radiologists was 65.8%. CONCLUSION: Considering similarities of respiratory infections especially H1N1 and COVID-19, it is essential to introduce some clinical and para clinical modalities to help differentiating them. In our study we extracted some lung CT scan findings from patients suspected to COVID-19 as a newly diagnosed infection comparing with influenza pneumonia patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype , Influenza, Human , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Influenza, Human/diagnostic imaging , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Lung , Male , Observer Variation , Radiologists , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Tomography, X-Ray Computed
18.
Med Sci Monit ; 27: e931283, 2021 May 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1217184

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND Imaging-based quantitative assessment of lung lesions plays a key role in patient triage and therapeutic decision-making processes. The aim of our study was to validate the Total Severity Score (TSS), Chest Computed Tomography Score (CT-S), and Chest CT Severity Score (CT-SS) scales, which were used to assess the extent of lung inflammation in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection in terms of interobserver agreement and the correlation of scores with patient clinical condition on the day of the study. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 77 chest CT scans collected from 77 consecutive patients hospitalized because of SARS-CoV-2 were included. The scans were assessed independently by 2 radiologists aware of the patients' positive results of RT-PCR tests. Each chest CT was assessed according to the 3 scales. To assess the interobserver agreement of CT scan assessments, Cohen's k and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were calculated. RESULTS For the overall assessment, the k was 0.944 and the ICC was 0.948 for the TSS; the kappa was 0.909 and the ICC was 0.919 for the CT-S; and the k was 0.888 and the ICC was 0.899 for the CT-SS. The CT-SS (r=0.627 for Radiologist 1 and r=0.653 for Radiologist 2) revealed the strongest positive correlation with the patient clinical condition as expressed using the Modified Early Warning Score. CONCLUSIONS The interobserver agreement for the 3 evaluated scales was very good. The CT-SS was found to have the strongest positive relationship with the Modified Early Warning Score.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , COVID-19/virology , Radiography, Thoracic , SARS-CoV-2 , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Biomarkers , Humans , Image Processing, Computer-Assisted , Observer Variation , Reproducibility of Results , Severity of Illness Index , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/standards
19.
Am J Clin Pathol ; 155(5): 638-648, 2021 04 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1207251

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The ongoing global severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic necessitates adaptations in the practice of surgical pathology at scale. Primary diagnosis by whole-slide imaging (WSI) is a key component that would aid departments in providing uninterrupted histopathology diagnosis and maintaining revenue streams from disruption. We sought to perform rapid validation of the use of WSI in primary diagnosis meeting recommendations of the College of American Pathologists guidelines. METHODS: Glass slides from clinically reported cases from 5 participating pathologists with a preset washout period were digitally scanned and reviewed in settings identical to typical reporting. Cases were classified as concordant or with minor or major disagreement with the original diagnosis. Randomized subsampling was performed, and mean concordance rates were calculated. RESULTS: In total, 171 cases were included and distributed equally among participants. For the group as a whole, the mean concordance rate in sampled cases (n = 90) was 83.6% counting all discrepancies and 94.6% counting only major disagreements. The mean pathologist concordance rate in sampled cases (n = 18) ranged from 90.49% to 97%. CONCLUSIONS: We describe a novel double-blinded method for rapid validation of WSI for primary diagnosis. Our findings highlight the occurrence of a range of diagnostic reproducibility when deploying digital methods.


Subject(s)
Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted/methods , Pathology, Surgical/methods , Telepathology/methods , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted/standards , Observer Variation , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pathology, Surgical/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Reproducibility of Results , Retrospective Studies , Telepathology/standards
20.
Am J Emerg Med ; 48: 1-11, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1163280

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Patients evaluated in the emergency department (ED) who have concerning symptoms suggestive of a cancer diagnosis are mostly referred to the quick diagnosis unit of our tertiary hospital. This study analyzed the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the volume, disease patterns, and accessibility to essential investigations of patients with suspected cancer referred by the ED to this unit. METHODS: Trends in referrals were analyzed from January 1 to July 8, 2020 and the corresponding dates of 2019. Only non-Covid-19 conditions were evaluated. Three time-based cohorts were defined: prepandemic (January 1-February 19), pandemic (February 19-April 22), and postpandemic (April 22-July 8). Along with descriptive statistics, linear regression was used to test for time trends with weekly referrals as the dependent variable. RESULTS: There were 384, 193, and 450 patients referred during the prepandemic, pandemic, and postpandemic periods, respectively. Following an increasing rate, referrals decreased to unprecedented levels in the pandemic period (average weekly slope: -2.1 cases), then increasing again until near normalization. Waiting times to most diagnostic procedures including radiology, endoscopic, nuclear medicine, and biopsy/cytology during the pandemic period were significantly delayed and time-to-diagnosis was considerably longer (19.72 ± 10.37 days vs. 8.33 ± 3.94 days in prepandemic and 13.49 ± 6.45 days in postpandemic period; P < 0.001 in both). Compared to other cohorts, pandemic cohort patients were more likely to have unintentional weight loss and fever of unknown origin as referral indications while anemia and lymphadenopathy were less common. Patients from the pandemic cohort had a significantly lower rate of malignancies and higher of benign gastrointestinal disorders (40.93% vs. 19.53% and 20.89% in prepandemic and postpandemic periods, respectively; P < 0.001 in both), most notably irritable bowel disease, and of mental and behavioral disorders (15.54% vs. 3.39% and 6.00% in prepandemic and postpandemic periods, respectively; P < 0.001 in both). CONCLUSIONS: As our hospital switched its traditional care to one focused on Covid-19 patients, recognized indicators of healthcare quality of quick diagnosis units were severely disrupted. The clinical patterns of presentation and diagnosis of the pandemic period suggested that mass media-generated mental and behavioral responses with distressing symptoms played a significant role in most of these patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Emergency Service, Hospital/trends , Health Services Accessibility/trends , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Quick Diagnosis Units/trends , Referral and Consultation/trends , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Delayed Diagnosis/trends , Diagnosis, Differential , Emergency Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Linear Models , Male , Middle Aged , Observer Variation , Reproducibility of Results , Retrospective Studies , Spain , Tertiary Care Centers , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL