Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 32
Filter
1.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ; 21(1): 658, 2021 Sep 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1770502

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Whilst the impact of Covid-19 infection in pregnant women has been examined, there is a scarcity of data on pregnant women in the Middle East. Thus, the aim of this study was to examine the impact of Covid-19 infection on pregnant women in the United Arab Emirates population. METHODS: A case-control study was carried out to compare the clinical course and outcome of pregnancy in 79 pregnant women with Covid-19 and 85 non-pregnant women with Covid-19 admitted to Latifa Hospital in Dubai between March and June 2020. RESULTS: Although Pregnant women presented with fewer symptoms such as fever, cough, sore throat, and shortness of breath compared to non-pregnant women; yet they ran a much more severe course of illness. On admission, 12/79 (15.2%) Vs 2/85 (2.4%) had a chest radiograph score [on a scale 1-6] of ≥3 (p-value = 0.0039). On discharge, 6/79 (7.6%) Vs 1/85 (1.2%) had a score ≥3 (p-value = 0.0438). They also had much higher levels of laboratory indicators of severity with values above reference ranges for C-Reactive Protein [(28 (38.3%) Vs 13 (17.6%)] with p < 0.004; and for D-dimer [32 (50.8%) Vs 3(6%)]; with p < 0.001. They required more ICU admissions: 10/79 (12.6%) Vs 1/85 (1.2%) with p=0.0036; and suffered more complications: 9/79 (11.4%) Vs 1/85 (1.2%) with p=0.0066; of Covid-19 infection, particularly in late pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnant women presented with fewer Covid-19 symptoms but ran a much more severe course of illness compared to non-pregnant women with the disease. They had worse chest radiograph scores and much higher levels of laboratory indicators of disease severity. They had more ICU admissions and suffered more complications of Covid-19 infection, such as risk for miscarriage and preterm deliveries. Pregnancy with Covid-19 infection, could, therefore, be categorised as high-risk pregnancy and requires management by an obstetric and medical multidisciplinary team.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious , Premature Birth , Radiography, Thoracic , Symptom Assessment , Abortion, Spontaneous/epidemiology , Abortion, Spontaneous/etiology , C-Reactive Protein/analysis , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19/transmission , Case-Control Studies , Female , Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products/analysis , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical/prevention & control , Male , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/epidemiology , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/physiopathology , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/therapy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/virology , Pregnancy Outcome/epidemiology , Pregnancy, High-Risk , Premature Birth/epidemiology , Premature Birth/etiology , Radiography, Thoracic/methods , Radiography, Thoracic/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Severity of Illness Index , Symptom Assessment/methods , Symptom Assessment/statistics & numerical data , United Arab Emirates/epidemiology
2.
Comput Math Methods Med ; 2021: 9269173, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1511543

ABSTRACT

Early diagnosis of the harmful severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), along with clinical expertise, allows governments to break the transition chain and flatten the epidemic curve. Although reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) offers quick results, chest X-ray (CXR) imaging is a more reliable method for disease classification and assessment. The rapid spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has triggered extensive research towards developing a COVID-19 detection toolkit. Recent studies have confirmed that the deep learning-based approach, such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs), provides an optimized solution for COVID-19 classification; however, they require substantial training data for learning features. Gathering this training data in a short period has been challenging during the pandemic. Therefore, this study proposes a new model of CNN and deep convolutional generative adversarial networks (DCGANs) that classify CXR images into normal, pneumonia, and COVID-19. The proposed model contains eight convolutional layers, four max-pooling layers, and two fully connected layers, which provide better results than the existing pretrained methods (AlexNet and GoogLeNet). DCGAN performs two tasks: (1) generating synthetic/fake images to overcome the challenges of an imbalanced dataset and (2) extracting deep features of all images in the dataset. In addition, it enlarges the dataset and represents the characteristics of diversity to provide a good generalization effect. In the experimental analysis, we used four distinct publicly accessible datasets of chest X-ray images (COVID-19 X-ray, COVID Chest X-ray, COVID-19 Radiography, and CoronaHack-Chest X-Ray) to train and test the proposed CNN and the existing pretrained methods. Thereafter, the proposed CNN method was trained with the four datasets based on the DCGAN synthetic images, resulting in higher accuracy (94.8%, 96.6%, 98.5%, and 98.6%) than the existing pretrained models. The overall results suggest that the proposed DCGAN-CNN approach is a promising solution for efficient COVID-19 diagnosis.


Subject(s)
Algorithms , COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/classification , COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , Deep Learning , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 Testing/statistics & numerical data , Databases, Factual , Early Diagnosis , False Positive Reactions , Humans , Neural Networks, Computer , Pandemics , ROC Curve , Radiography, Thoracic/statistics & numerical data , Software Design , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/statistics & numerical data
3.
Ghana Med J ; 54(4 Suppl): 46-51, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1436194

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The novel corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was diagnosed in Wuhan, China in December 2019 and, in Ghana, in March 2020. As of 30th July 2020, Ghana had recorded 35,142 cases. COVID-19 which can be transmitted by both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals usually manifest as pneumonia with symptoms like fever, cough, dyspnoea and fatigue. The current non-availability of a vaccine or drug for COVID-19 management calls for early detection and isolation of affected individuals. Chest imaging has become an integral part of patient management with chest radiography serving as a primary imaging modality in many centres. METHODS: The study was a retrospective study conducted at Ga East Municipal Hospital (GEMH). Chest radiographs of patients with mild to moderate disease managed at GEMH were evaluated. The age, gender, symptom status, comorbidities and chest x-ray findings of the patients were documented. RESULTS: 11.4 % of the patients had some form of respiratory abnormality on chest radiography with 88.9% showing COVID-19 pneumonia features. 93.8% showed ground glass opacities (GGO), with 3.1% each showing consolidation (CN) only and CN with GGO. There was a significant association between COVID-19 radiographic features and patient's age, symptom status and comorbidities but not with gender. CONCLUSION: Most radiographs were normal with only 11% showing COVID-19-like abnormality. There was a significant association between age, symptom status and comorbidities with the presence of COVID-19 like features but not for gender. There was no association between the extent of the lung changes and patient characteristics. FUNDING: None declared.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , Radiography, Thoracic/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Comorbidity , Female , Ghana/epidemiology , Hospitals, Urban , Humans , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Lung/virology , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Severity of Illness Index , Symptom Assessment/methods , Young Adult
4.
Scott Med J ; 66(3): 101-107, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1285149

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To devise a novel, simple chest x-ray (CXR) scoring system which would help in prognosticating the disease severity and ability to predict comorbidities and in-hospital mortality. METHODS: We included a total of 343 consecutive hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in this study. The chest x-rays of these patients were scored retrospectively by three radiologists independently. We divided CXR in to six zones (right upper, mid & lower and left, upper mid & lower zones). We scored each zone as- 0, 1 or 2 as follows- if that zone was clear (0) Ground glass opacity (1) or Consolidation (2). A total of score from 0 to 12 could be obtained. RESULTS: A CXR score cut off ≥3 independently predicted mortality. Along with a relatively higher NPV ≥80%, it reinforced the importance of CXR score is a screening tool to triage patients according to risk of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: We propose that Pennine score is a simple tool which can be adapted by various countries, experiencing a large surge in number of patients, to decide which patient would need a tertiary Hospital referral/admission as opposed to patients that can be managed locally or at basic/primary care hospitals.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , Radiography, Thoracic , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/mortality , Comorbidity , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Predictive Value of Tests , Prognosis , Radiography, Thoracic/methods , Radiography, Thoracic/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Severity of Illness Index
5.
Comput Math Methods Med ; 2021: 5528144, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1262412

ABSTRACT

Pneumonia is an infamous life-threatening lung bacterial or viral infection. The latest viral infection endangering the lives of many people worldwide is the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes COVID-19. This paper is aimed at detecting and differentiating viral pneumonia and COVID-19 disease using digital X-ray images. The current practices include tedious conventional processes that solely rely on the radiologist or medical consultant's technical expertise that are limited, time-consuming, inefficient, and outdated. The implementation is easily prone to human errors of being misdiagnosed. The development of deep learning and technology improvement allows medical scientists and researchers to venture into various neural networks and algorithms to develop applications, tools, and instruments that can further support medical radiologists. This paper presents an overview of deep learning techniques made in the chest radiography on COVID-19 and pneumonia cases.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , Deep Learning , SARS-CoV-2 , Algorithms , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing/statistics & numerical data , Computational Biology , Diagnosis, Differential , Humans , Mathematical Concepts , Neural Networks, Computer , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnostic imaging , Radiography, Thoracic/statistics & numerical data , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/statistics & numerical data
6.
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
7.
BMJ Open Respir Res ; 8(1)2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1172762

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The symptoms, radiography, biochemistry and healthcare utilisation of patients with COVID-19 following discharge from hospital have not been well described. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 401 adult patients attending a clinic following an index hospital admission or emergency department attendance with COVID-19. Regression models were used to assess the association between characteristics and persistent abnormal chest radiographs or breathlessness. RESULTS: 75.1% of patients were symptomatic at a median of 53 days post discharge and 72 days after symptom onset and chest radiographs were abnormal in 47.4%. Symptoms and radiographic abnormalities were similar in PCR-positive and PCR-negative patients. Severity of COVID-19 was significantly associated with persistent radiographic abnormalities and breathlessness. 18.5% of patients had unscheduled healthcare visits in the 30 days post discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COVID-19 experience persistent symptoms and abnormal blood biomarkers with a gradual resolution of radiological abnormalities over time. These findings can inform patients and clinicians about expected recovery times and plan services for follow-up of patients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Aftercare , Biomarkers/analysis , COVID-19 , Patient Discharge/standards , Radiography, Thoracic , Symptom Assessment , Aftercare/methods , Aftercare/organization & administration , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/physiopathology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Radiography, Thoracic/methods , Radiography, Thoracic/statistics & numerical data , Recovery of Function , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Symptom Assessment/methods , Symptom Assessment/statistics & numerical data , Time Factors , United Kingdom/epidemiology
8.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 3: CD013639, 2021 03 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1159778

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , Radiography, Thoracic , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Ultrasonography , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Bias , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/standards , Child , Confidence Intervals , Humans , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Middle Aged , Radiography, Thoracic/standards , Radiography, Thoracic/statistics & numerical data , Reference Standards , Sensitivity and Specificity , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/standards , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/statistics & numerical data , Ultrasonography/standards , Ultrasonography/statistics & numerical data , Young Adult
9.
Chest ; 160(1): 238-248, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1149107

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Radiography, Thoracic , Respiration Disorders , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , New York City/epidemiology , Predictive Value of Tests , Radiography, Thoracic/methods , Radiography, Thoracic/standards , Radiography, Thoracic/statistics & numerical data , Respiration Disorders/diagnosis , Respiration Disorders/etiology , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(5): e23991, 2021 Feb 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1087853

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: Since the first infected case of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) was reported in Wuhan, China in December 2019, the virus has spread swiftly, inflicting upon millions of people around the globe. The objective of the study is to investigate and analyze the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients infected with COVID-19 in Wuxi, China.Cross-sectional study.The Fifth People's Hospital of Wuxi, China.A total of 48 COVID-19 patients were enrolled in the study from 23 January 2020 to 8 March 2020, and the clinical data of these subjects were collected.Epidemiological, clinical, laboratory, and radiologic characteristics, as well as treatment and outcome data, were collected and analyzed.Of these 48 patients with confirmed COVID-19, 3 were mild cases (6.3%), 44 were moderate cases (91.7%), 1 was severe case (2.1%). The median age of the subjects was 45 years (interquartile range [IQR], 24-59; range, 5-75 years). Twenty-five of the patients (52.1%) were male and 23 (47.9%) were female. Twenty-eight cases (58.3%) returned to Wuxi, Jiangsu Province. Thirty-four (70.8%) cases were infected due to clustering epidemic and 29 cases (85.3%) were attributable to family-clustering epidemic. No obvious clinical symptoms were observed in the cohort of patients, except for 3 mild cases. The most common symptoms include fever (41 [85.4%]), cough (28 [58.3%]), asthenia (13 [27.1%]), expectoration (11 [22.9%]), diarrhea (10 [20.8%]), and dyspnea (5 [10.4%]). Seventeen (35.4%) patients had lower lymphocyte values than baseline, 31 patients (64.6%) had higher d-dimers to exceed the normal range. The distribution of high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT)-positive lesions were as follows: left lung in 5 cases (10.4%), right lung in 9 cases (18.8%), and bilateral lungs in 31 cases (64.6%). In terms of density of lesions: 28 cases (58.3%) showed ground glass shadows in the lung, 7 cases (14.6%) showed solid density shadows, and 10 cases (20.8%) showed mixed density shadows. Extrapulmonary manifestations found that mediastinal lymph nodes were enlarged in 2 cases (4.2%) and that pleural effusion was present in 1 case (2.1%). All patients underwent treatment in quarantine. Forty-five (93.8%) patients received antiviral treatments, 22 (45.8%) patients received antibacterial treatments, 6 (12.5%) patients received glucocorticoid treatments, 2 (4.2%) patients received high flow oxygen inhalation treatments, and 6 (12.5%) patients received noninvasive ventilation treatments. As of 8 March 2020, all 48 patients included in this study were cured. The average time of hospitalization of the 48 patients was 18 ±â€Š6 (mean ±â€ŠSD) days, the average time of the lesion resorption was 11 ±â€Š4 days, and the average time taken to achieve negativity in the result of nucleic acid examination was (10 ±â€Š4) days.The epidemiological characteristics of 48 COVID-19 patients in Wuxi were mainly imported cases and clustered cases. The clinical manifestations of these patients were mainly fever and cough. Laboratory results showed that the lymphocytopenia and increased d-dimer are positively correlated with disease severity. Pulmonary imaging showed unilateral or bilateral ground glass infiltration. Most of the patients entered clinical recovery stage within 15 days after hospitalization.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cough , Fever , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Patient Care , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Symptom Assessment/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/physiopathology , COVID-19/therapy , China/epidemiology , Cluster Analysis , Cough/diagnosis , Cough/etiology , Family Health/statistics & numerical data , Female , Fever/diagnosis , Fever/etiology , Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products/analysis , Humans , Lymphopenia/diagnosis , Lymphopenia/etiology , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Care/methods , Patient Care/statistics & numerical data , Radiography, Thoracic/statistics & numerical data , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods
12.
BMC Infect Dis ; 20(1): 953, 2020 Dec 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-971572

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a world-wide health crisis. Limited information is available regarding which patients will experience more severe disease symptoms. We evaluated hospitalized patients who were initially diagnosed with moderate COVID-19 for clinical parameters and radiological feature that showed an association with progression to severe/critical symptoms. METHODS: This study, a retrospective single-center study at the Central Hospital of Wuhan, enrolled 243 patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia. Forty of these patients progressed from moderate to severe/critical symptoms during follow up. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, and radiological data were extracted from electronic medical records and compared between moderate- and severe/critical-type symptoms. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify the risk factors associated with symptom progression. RESULTS: Patients with severe/critical symptoms were older (p < 0.001) and more often male (p = 0.046). A combination of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and high maximum chest computed tomography (CT) score was associated with disease progression. Maximum CT score (> 11) had the greatest predictive value for disease progression. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.861 (95% confidence interval: 0.811-0.902). CONCLUSIONS: Maximum CT score and COPD were associated with patient deterioration. Maximum CT score (> 11) was associated with severe illness.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , Radiography, Thoracic/statistics & numerical data , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19/epidemiology , China/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Disease Progression , Female , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , ROC Curve , Radiography, Thoracic/methods , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Young Adult
13.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 11: CD013639, 2020 11 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-946940

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The respiratory illness caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to present diagnostic challenges. Early research showed thoracic (chest) imaging to be sensitive but not specific in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, this is a rapidly developing field and these findings need to be re-evaluated in the light of new research. This is the first update of this 'living systematic review'. This update focuses on people suspected of having COVID-19 and excludes studies with only confirmed COVID-19 participants. 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 22 June 2020. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of all designs that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19, and which reported estimates of test accuracy, or provided data from which estimates could be computed. When studies used a variety of reference standards, we retained the classification of participants as COVID-19 positive or negative as used in the study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 domain-list independently, in duplicate. We categorised included studies into three groups based on classification of index test results: studies that reported specific criteria for index test positivity (group 1); studies that did not report specific criteria, but had the test reader(s) explicitly classify the imaging test result as either COVID-19 positive or negative (group 2); and studies that reported an overview of index test findings, without explicitly classifying the imaging test as either COVID-19 positive or negative (group 3). We presented the results of estimated sensitivity and specificity using paired forest plots, and summarised in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented uncertainty of the accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 studies: 30 were cross-sectional studies with 8491 participants suspected of COVID-19, of which 4575 (54%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19; four were case-control studies with 848 cases and controls in total, of which 464 (55%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Chest CT was evaluated in 31 studies (8014 participants, 4224 (53%) cases), chest X-ray in three studies (1243 participants, 784 (63%) cases), and ultrasound of the lungs in one study (100 participants, 31 (31%) cases). Twenty-six per cent (9/34) of all studies were available only as preprints. Nineteen studies were conducted in Asia, 10 in Europe, four in North America and one in Australia. Sixteen studies included only adults, 15 studies included both adults and children and one included only children. Two studies did not report the ages of participants. Twenty-four studies included inpatients, four studies included outpatients, while the remaining six studies were conducted in unclear settings. The majority of included studies had a high or unclear risk of bias with respect to participant selection, index test, reference standard, and participant flow. For chest CT in suspected COVID-19 participants (31 studies, 8014 participants, 4224 (53%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 57.4% to 100%, and specificity ranged from 0% to 96.0%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT in suspected COVID-19 participants was 89.9% (95% CI 85.7 to 92.9) and the pooled specificity was 61.1% (95% CI 42.3 to 77.1). Sensitivity analyses showed that when the studies from China were excluded, the studies from other countries demonstrated higher specificity compared to the overall included studies. When studies that did not classify index tests as positive or negative for COVID-19 (group 3) were excluded, the remaining studies (groups 1 and 2) demonstrated higher specificity compared to the overall included studies. Sensitivity analyses limited to cross-sectional studies, or studies where at least two reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests were conducted if the first was negative, did not substantively alter the accuracy estimates. We did not identify publication status as a source of heterogeneity. For chest X-ray in suspected COVID-19 participants (3 studies, 1243 participants, 784 (63%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 56.9% to 89.0% and specificity from 11.1% to 88.9%. The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound of the lungs in suspected COVID-19 participants (1 study, 100 participants, 31 (31%) cases) were 96.8% and 62.3%, respectively. We could not perform a meta-analysis for chest X-ray or ultrasound due to the limited number of included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that chest CT is sensitive and moderately specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in suspected patients, meaning that CT may have limited capability in differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. However, we are limited in our confidence in these results due to the poor study quality and the heterogeneity of included studies. Because of limited data, accuracy estimates of chest X-ray and ultrasound of the lungs for the diagnosis of suspected COVID-19 cases should be carefully interpreted. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should pre-define positive imaging findings, include direct comparisons of the various modalities of interest on the same participant population, and implement improved reporting practices. Planned updates of this review will aim to: increase precision around the accuracy estimates for chest CT (ideally with low risk of bias studies); obtain further data to inform accuracy of chest X-rays and ultrasound; and obtain data to further fulfil secondary objectives (e.g. 'threshold' effects, comparing accuracy estimates across different imaging modalities) to inform the utility of imaging along different diagnostic pathways.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , Radiography, Thoracic , SARS-CoV-2 , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Ultrasonography , Adult , Bias , Case-Control Studies , Child , Cross-Sectional Studies/statistics & numerical data , Diagnostic Errors/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Radiography, Thoracic/statistics & numerical data , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/statistics & numerical data , Sensitivity and Specificity , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/statistics & numerical data , Ultrasonography/statistics & numerical data
14.
Intern Emerg Med ; 16(5): 1173-1181, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-935323

ABSTRACT

To describe radiographic key patterns on Chest X-ray (CXR) in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, assessing the prevalence of radiographic signs of interstitial pneumonia. To evaluate pattern variation between a baseline and a follow-up CXR. 1117 patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection were retrospectively enrolled from four centers in Lombardy region. All patients underwent a CXR at presentation. Follow-up CXR was performed when clinically indicated. Two radiologists in each center reviewed images and classified them as suggestive or not for interstitial pneumonia, recording the presence of ground-glass opacity (GGO), reticular pattern or consolidation and their distribution. Pearson's χ2 test for categorical variables and McNemar test (χ2 for paired data) were performed. Patients mean age 63.3 years, 767 were males (65.5%). The main result is the large proportion of positive CXR in COVID-19 patients. Baseline CXR was positive in 940 patients (80.3%), with significant differences in age and sex distribution between patients with positive and negative CXR. 382 patients underwent a follow-up CXR. The most frequent pattern on baseline CXR was the GGO (66.1%), on follow-up was consolidation (53.4%). The most common distributions were peripheral and middle-lower lung zone. We described key-patterns and their distribution on CXR in a large cohort of COVID-19 patients: GGO was the most frequent finding on baseline CXR, while we found an increase in the proportion of lung consolidation on follow-up CXR. CXR proved to be a reliable tool in our cohort obtaining positive results in 80.3% of the baseline cases.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , Radiography, Thoracic/methods , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Radiography, Thoracic/statistics & numerical data , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods
15.
Clin Med (Lond) ; 21(1): e45-e47, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-926671

ABSTRACT

During the first 3 months of 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic developed, it was noticed that requests from primary care for investigations were decreasing, including those that form part of the diagnostic process for cancers. We therefore obtained data on the requests from primary care for chest X-rays (CXRs) and CA125 measurement our hospital received in the first half of 2020 and compared them with 2019. The number of CXRs declined by 93% in April 2020 compared with 2019, with the decline being greater for patient living in outlying areas. Requests from the emergency department also declined. Requests for CA125 measurement similarly fell by 77% from all areas. The requests increased in June, CA125 more than CXR. If this phenomenon is widespread it may have an impact on diagnosis of major conditions, particularly cancers and tuberculosis.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Pandemics , Radiography, Thoracic/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom/epidemiology
16.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab ; 106(2): e602-e614, 2021 01 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-914177

ABSTRACT

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 has become the most relevant medical issue globally. Despite several studies that have investigated clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients, no data have been reported on the prevalence of vertebral fractures (VFs). Since VFs may influence cardiorespiratory function and disease outcomes, the aim of this study was to assess VFs prevalence and clinical impact in COVID-19. DESIGN AND PATIENTS: This was a retrospective cohort study performed at San Raffaele Hospital, a tertiary health care hospital in Italy. We included COVID-19 patients for whom lateral chest x-rays at emergency department were available. VFs were detected using a semiquantitative evaluation of vertebral shape on chest x-rays. RESULTS: A total of 114 patients were included in this study and thoracic VFs were detected in 41 patients (36%). Patients with VFs were older and more frequently affected by hypertension and coronary artery disease (P < 0.001, P = 0.007, P = 0.034; respectively). Thirty-six (88%) patients in VFs+ group compared to 54 (74%) in VFs- group were hospitalized (P = 0.08). Patients with VFs more frequently required noninvasive mechanical ventilation compared with those without VFs (P = 0.02). Mortality was 22% in VFs+ group and 10% in VFs- group (P = 0.07). In particular, mortality was higher in patients with severe VFs compared with those with moderate and mild VFs (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: VFs may integrate the cardiorespiratory risk of COVID-19 patients, being a useful and easy to measure clinical marker of fragility and poor prognosis. We suggest that morphometric thoracic vertebral evaluation should be performed in all suspected COVID-19 patients undergoing chest x-rays.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Spinal Fractures/epidemiology , Thoracic Vertebrae , Aged , COVID-19/complications , Cohort Studies , Comorbidity , Female , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Prevalence , Prognosis , Radiography, Thoracic/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Severity of Illness Index , Spinal Fractures/complications , Spinal Fractures/diagnosis , Spinal Fractures/diagnostic imaging , Thoracic Vertebrae/diagnostic imaging , Thoracic Vertebrae/injuries , Thoracic Vertebrae/pathology
17.
Comput Math Methods Med ; 2020: 9756518, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-814273

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 diagnostic approach is mainly divided into two broad categories, a laboratory-based and chest radiography approach. The last few months have witnessed a rapid increase in the number of studies use artificial intelligence (AI) techniques to diagnose COVID-19 with chest computed tomography (CT). In this study, we review the diagnosis of COVID-19 by using chest CT toward AI. We searched ArXiv, MedRxiv, and Google Scholar using the terms "deep learning", "neural networks", "COVID-19", and "chest CT". At the time of writing (August 24, 2020), there have been nearly 100 studies and 30 studies among them were selected for this review. We categorized the studies based on the classification tasks: COVID-19/normal, COVID-19/non-COVID-19, COVID-19/non-COVID-19 pneumonia, and severity. The sensitivity, specificity, precision, accuracy, area under the curve, and F1 score results were reported as high as 100%, 100%, 99.62, 99.87%, 100%, and 99.5%, respectively. However, the presented results should be carefully compared due to the different degrees of difficulty of different classification tasks.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coronavirus Infections/diagnostic imaging , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnostic imaging , Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted/methods , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/statistics & numerical data , Artificial Intelligence , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Deep Learning , Humans , Neural Networks, Computer , Pneumonia/classification , Pneumonia/diagnostic imaging , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted/statistics & numerical data , Radiography, Thoracic/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity
18.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD013639, 2020 09 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-809177

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of infection by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) presents major challenges. Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing is used to diagnose a current infection, but its utility as a reference standard is constrained by sampling errors, limited sensitivity (71% to 98%), and dependence on the timing of specimen collection. Chest imaging tests are being used in the diagnosis of COVID-19 disease, or when RT-PCR testing is unavailable. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of chest imaging (computed tomography (CT), X-ray and ultrasound) in people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. We conducted searches for this review iteration up to 5 May 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of all designs that produce estimates of test accuracy or provide data from which estimates can be computed. We included two types of cross-sectional designs: a) where all patients suspected of the target condition enter the study through the same route and b) where it is not clear up front who has and who does not have the target condition, or where the patients with the target condition are recruited in a different way or from a different population from the patients without the target condition. When studies used a variety of reference standards, we included all of them. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened studies and extracted data independently, in duplicate. We also assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns independently, in duplicate, using the QUADAS-2 checklist and presented the results of estimated sensitivity and specificity, using paired forest plots, and summarised in tables. We used a hierarchical meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented uncertainty of the accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 84 studies, falling into two categories: studies with participants with confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19 at the time of recruitment (71 studies with 6331 participants) and studies with participants suspected of COVID-19 (13 studies with 1948 participants, including three case-control studies with 549 cases and controls). Chest CT was evaluated in 78 studies (8105 participants), chest X-ray in nine studies (682 COVID-19 cases), and chest ultrasound in two studies (32 COVID-19 cases). All evaluations of chest X-ray and ultrasound were conducted in studies with confirmed diagnoses only. Twenty-five per cent (21/84) of all studies were available only as preprints, 15/71 studies in the confirmed cases group and 6/13 of the studies in the suspected group. Among 71 studies that included confirmed cases, 41 studies had included symptomatic cases only, 25 studies had included cases regardless of their symptoms, five studies had included asymptomatic cases only, three of which included a combination of confirmed and suspected cases. Seventy studies were conducted in Asia, 2 in Europe, 2 in North America and one in South America. Fifty-one studies included inpatients while the remaining 24 studies were conducted in mixed or unclear settings. Risk of bias was high in most studies, mainly due to concerns about selection of participants and applicability. Among the 13 studies that included suspected cases, nine studies were conducted in Asia, and one in Europe. Seven studies included inpatients while the remaining three studies were conducted in mixed or unclear settings. In studies that included confirmed cases the pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 93.1% (95%CI: 90.2 - 95.0 (65 studies, 5759 cases); and for X-ray 82.1% (95%CI: 62.5 to 92.7 (9 studies, 682 cases). Heterogeneity judged by visual assessment of the ROC plots was considerable. Two studies evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound and both reported zero false negatives (with 10 and 22 participants having undergone ultrasound, respectively). These studies only reported True Positive and False Negative data, therefore it was not possible to pool and derive estimates of specificity. In studies that included suspected cases, the pooled sensitivity of CT was 86.2% (95%CI: 71.9 to 93.8 (13 studies, 2346 participants) and specificity was 18.1% (95%CI: 3.71 to 55.8). Heterogeneity judged by visual assessment of the forest plots was high. Chest CT may give approximately the same proportion of positive results for patients with and without a SARS-CoV-2 infection: the chances of getting a positive CT result are 86% (95% CI: 72 to 94) in patient with a SARS-CoV-2 infection and 82% (95% CI: 44 to 96) in patients without. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The uncertainty resulting from the poor study quality and the heterogeneity of included studies limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results. Our findings indicate that chest CT is sensitive but not specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in suspected patients, meaning that CT may not be capable of differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. This low specificity could also be the result of the poor sensitivity of the reference standard (RT-PCR), as CT could potentially be more sensitive than RT-PCR in some cases. Because of limited data, accuracy estimates of chest X-ray and ultrasound of the lungs for the diagnosis of COVID-19 should be carefully interpreted. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should avoid cases-only studies and pre-define positive imaging findings. Planned updates of this review will aim to: increase precision around the accuracy estimates for CT (ideally with low risk of bias studies); obtain further data to inform accuracy of chest X rays and ultrasound; and continue to search for studies that fulfil secondary objectives to inform the utility of imaging along different diagnostic pathways.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coronavirus Infections/diagnostic imaging , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnostic imaging , Adult , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Child , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Humans , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Pandemics , Radiography, Thoracic/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/statistics & numerical data , Ultrasonography/statistics & numerical data
19.
Pediatrics ; 146(6)2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-793123

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Variability in presentation of children with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a challenge in emergency departments (EDs) in terms of early recognition, which has an effect on disease control and prevention. We describe a cohort of 170 children with COVID-19 and differences with the published cohorts. METHODS: Retrospective chart reviews on children (0-18 years) evaluated in 17 Italian pediatric EDs. RESULTS: In our cohort (median age of 45 months; interquartile range of 4 months-10.7 years), we found a high number of patients <1 year with COVID-19 disease. The exposure happened mainly (59%) outside family clusters; 22% had comorbidities. Children were more frequently asymptomatic (17%) or with mild diseases (63%). Common symptoms were cough (43%) and difficulty feeding (35%). Chest computed tomography, chest radiograph, and point-of-care lung ultrasound were used in 2%, 36%, and 8% of cases, respectively. Forty-three percent of patients were admitted because of their clinical conditions. The minimal use of computed tomography and chest radiograph may have led to a reduced identification of moderate cases, which may have been clinically classified as mild cases. CONCLUSIONS: Italian children evaluated in the ED infrequently have notable disease symptoms. For pediatrics, COVID-19 may have rare but serious and life-threatening presentations but, in the majority of cases, represents an organizational burden for the ED. These data should not lower the attention to and preparedness for COVID-19 disease because children may represent a source of viral transmission. A clinically driven classification, instead of a radiologic, could be more valuable in predicting patient needs and better allocating resources.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Asymptomatic Infections/epidemiology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , COVID-19 Testing/statistics & numerical data , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Infant , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Point-of-Care Testing/statistics & numerical data , Radiography, Thoracic/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , Symptom Assessment , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/diagnosis , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/epidemiology , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/statistics & numerical data , Ultrasonography/statistics & numerical data
20.
Eur Radiol ; 31(3): 1185-1193, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-774373

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This survey conducted by the International Society of Radiology and supported by the European Society of Radiology aimed to collect information regarding radiology departments' current practices in the management of patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Responses from 50 radiology departments involved in the management of COVID-19 patients representing 33 countries across all continents were analyzed. The analysis revealed important variations in imaging practices related to COVID-19 across the world for different disease severity and various clinical scenarios. RESULTS: Imaging is usually not performed in asymptomatic patients (69% of institutions do not image) but is used at the end of confinement (in 60% of institutions). In the majority of institutions, chest imaging is used in suspected or confirmed patients with COVID-19 (89% and 94%). All imaging departments involved in this survey reported the use of imaging in COVID-19 patients showing severe symptoms or who were critically ill. However, there is a wide variation in imaging modality type used for each clinical scenario. The use of imaging is applied in line with existing guidelines and recommendations in 98% of institutions with structured reporting recorded in 58% of institutions. The vast majority of institutions reported a significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the imaging department's routine activity (83%). CONCLUSION: We believe that the results of this survey will help to understand current heterogeneities in radiology practice and to identify needs and gaps in the organization and function of radiology departments worldwide in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of this survey may inform the development of an overall strategy for radiology department organization and imaging protocols in pandemic conditions. KEY POINTS: • The results of this survey, which included responses from 50 radiology departments representing 33 countries, showed important variations in imaging practices related to COVID-19 across the world. • While imaging is usually not performed in asymptomatic patients (69% of institutions), it is used in suspected or confirmed patients with COVID-19, in COVID-19 patients showing severe symptoms or who were critically ill, and at the end of confinement (89%, 94%, 100%, 100%, 60% of institutions, respectively). However, there is a wide variation in imaging modality type used for each clinical scenario. • In 98% of institutions, the use of imaging is applied in line with existing guidelines and recommendations, with structured reporting recorded in 58% of institutions. COVID-19 pandemic made a significant impact on the imaging department's routine activity in 83% of institutions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Radiography, Thoracic/statistics & numerical data , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/statistics & numerical data , Ultrasonography/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/physiopathology , Carrier State/diagnostic imaging , Humans , Internationality , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , Radiography , Radiology Department, Hospital , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Surveys and Questionnaires
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL