Diagnostic performance of standardized typical CT findings for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To meta-analyze diagnostic performance measures of standardized typical CT findings for COVID-19 and examine these measures by region and national income. METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase were searched from January 2020 to April 2022 for diagnostic studies using the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) classification or the COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) for COVID-19. Patient and study characteristics were extracted. We pooled the diagnostic performance of typical CT findings in the RSNA and CO-RADS systems and interobserver agreement. Meta-regression was performed to examine the effect of potential explanatory factors on the diagnostic performance of the typical CT findings. RESULTS: We included 42 diagnostic performance studies with 6777 PCR-positive and 9955 PCR-negative patients from 18 developing and 24 developed countries covering the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Africa. The pooled sensitivity was 70% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 65%, 74%; I2 = 92%), and the pooled specificity was 90% (95% CI 86%, 93%; I2 = 94%) for the typical CT findings of COVID-19. The sensitivity and specificity of the typical CT findings did not differ significantly by national income and the region of the study (p > 0.1, respectively). The pooled interobserver agreement from 19 studies was 0.72 (95% CI 0.63, 0.81; I2 = 99%) for the typical CT findings and 0.67 (95% CI 0.61, 0.74; I2 = 99%) for the overall CT classifications. CONCLUSION: The standardized typical CT findings for COVID-19 provided moderate sensitivity and high specificity globally, regardless of region and national income, and were highly reproducible between radiologists. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Standardized typical CT findings for COVID-19 provided a reproducible high diagnostic accuracy globally. KEY POINTS: Standardized typical CT findings for COVID-19 provide high sensitivity and specificity. Typical CT findings show high diagnosability regardless of region or income. The interobserver agreement for typical findings of COVID-19 is substantial.

Impact of Enhanced in-Hospital Infection Prevention During the COVID-19 Pandemic on Postoperative Pneumonia in Older Surgical Patients.

Purpose: We aimed to investigate the impact of enhanced in-hospital infection prevention during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on postoperative pneumonia in older surgical patients. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of consecutive patients ≥70 years who underwent elective surgery between 2017 and 2021 at our institution. All perioperative variables were retrieved from the electronic medical records. The primary outcome was new-onset postoperative pneumonia during the hospitalization period. Since February 2020, our institution implemented a series of policies to enhance infection prevention, hence patients were divided into groups according to whether they underwent surgery before or during the COVID-19 pandemic. An interrupted time series analysis was performed to evaluate the difference between pre- and post-intervention slopes of the primary outcome. Results: Among the 29,387 patients included in the study, 10,547 patients underwent surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although there was a decreasing trend of the monthly incidence rate of postoperative pneumonia compared to before the COVID-19 pandemic, there was no statistical significance in the trend (slope before COVID-19 period: ß-coefficient, -0.007; 95% CI, -0.022 to 0.007). Conclusion: Our study revealed that enhanced in-hospital infection prevention implemented to manage the COVID-19 pandemic did not significantly affect the decreasing trend of postoperative pneumonia at our institution.

CT Examinations for COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Protocols, Radiation Dose, and Numbers Needed to Diagnose and Predict.

Purpose: Although chest CT has been discussed as a first-line test for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), little research has explored the implications of CT exposure in the population. To review chest CT protocols and radiation doses in COVID-19 publications and explore the number needed to diagnose (NND) and the number needed to predict (NNP) if CT is used as a first-line test. Materials and Methods: We searched nine highly cited radiology journals to identify studies discussing the CT-based diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia. Study-level information on the CT protocol and radiation dose was collected, and the doses were compared with each national diagnostic reference level (DRL). The NND and NNP, which depends on the test positive rate (TPR), were calculated, given a CT sensitivity of 94% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 91%-96%) and specificity of 37% (95% CI: 26%-50%), and applied to the early outbreak in Wuhan, New York, and Italy. Results: From 86 studies, the CT protocol and radiation dose were reported in 81 (94.2%) and 17 studies (19.8%), respectively. Low-dose chest CT was used more than twice as often as standard-dose chest CT (39.5% vs.18.6%), while the remaining studies (44.2%) did not provide relevant information. The radiation doses were lower than the national DRLs in 15 of the 17 studies (88.2%) that reported doses. The NND was 3.2 scans (95% CI: 2.2-6.0). The NNPs at TPRs of 50%, 25%, 10%, and 5% were 2.2, 3.6, 8.0, 15.5 scans, respectively. In Wuhan, 35418 (TPR, 58%; 95% CI: 27710-56755) to 44840 (TPR, 38%; 95% CI: 35161-68164) individuals were estimated to have undergone CT examinations to diagnose 17365 patients. During the early surge in New York and Italy, daily NNDs changed up to 5.4 and 10.9 times, respectively, within 10 weeks. Conclusion: Low-dose CT protocols were described in less than half of COVID-19 publications, and radiation doses were frequently lacking. The number of populations involved in a first-line diagnostic CT test could vary dynamically according to daily TPR; therefore, caution is required in future planning.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of regional risk factors for critical outcomes of COVID-19 during early phase of the pandemic.

The mortality rates of COVID-19 vary across the globe. While some risk factors for poor prognosis of the disease are known, regional differences are suspected. We reviewed the risk factors for critical outcomes of COVID-19 according to the location of the infected patients, from various literature databases from January 1 through June 8, 2020. Candidate variables to predict the outcome included patient demographics, underlying medical conditions, symptoms, and laboratory findings. The risk factors in the overall population included sex, age, and all inspected underlying medical conditions. Symptoms of dyspnea, anorexia, dizziness, fatigue, and certain laboratory findings were also indicators of the critical outcome. Underlying respiratory disease was associated higher risk of the critical outcome in studies from Asia and Europe, but not North America. Underlying hepatic disease was associated with a higher risk of the critical outcome from Europe, but not from Asia and North America. Symptoms of vomiting, anorexia, dizziness, and fatigue were significantly associated with the critical outcome in studies from Asia, but not from Europe and North America. Hemoglobin and platelet count affected patients differently in Asia compared to those in Europe and North America. Such regional discrepancies should be considered when treating patients with COVID-19.

Pulmonary Embolism and Deep Vein Thrombosis in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background The association of pulmonary embolism (PE) with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear, and the diagnostic accuracy of D-dimer tests for PE is unknown. Purpose To conduct meta-analysis of the study-level incidence of PE and DVT and to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of D-dimer tests for PE from multicenter individual patient data. Materials and Methods A systematic literature search identified studies evaluating the incidence of PE or DVT in patients with COVID-19 from January 1, 2020, to June 15, 2020. These outcomes were pooled using a random-effects model and were further evaluated using metaregression analysis. The diagnostic accuracy of D-dimer tests for PE was estimated on the basis of individual patient data using the summary receiver operating characteristic curve. Results Twenty-seven studies with 3342 patients with COVID-19 were included in the analysis. The pooled incidence rates of PE and DVT were 16.5% (95% CI: 11.6, 22.9; I2 = 0.93) and 14.8% (95% CI: 8.5, 24.5; I2 = 0.94), respectively. PE was more frequently found in patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) (24.7% [95% CI: 18.6, 32.1] vs 10.5% [95% CI: 5.1, 20.2] in those not admitted to the ICU) and in studies with universal screening using CT pulmonary angiography. DVT was present in 42.4% of patients with PE. D-dimer tests had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.737 for PE, and D-dimer levels of 500 and 1000 µg/L showed high sensitivity (96% and 91%, respectively) but low specificity (10% and 24%, respectively). Conclusion Pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) occurred in 16.5% and 14.8% of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), respectively, and more than half of patients with PE lacked DVT. The cutoffs of D-dimer levels used to exclude PE in preexisting guidelines seem applicable to patients with COVID-19. © RSNA, 2020 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Woodard in this issue.

Diagnostic Performance of CT and Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction for Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Meta-Analysis.

Background Recent studies have suggested that chest CT scans could be used as a primary screening or diagnostic tool for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in epidemic areas. Purpose To perform a meta-analysis to evaluate diagnostic performance measures, including predictive values of chest CT and initial reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Materials and Methods Medline and Embase were searched from January 1, 2020, to April 3, 2020, for studies on COVID-19 that reported the sensitivity, specificity, or both of CT scans, RT-PCR assays, or both. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated by using random-effects models. The actual prevalence (ie, the proportion of confirmed patients among those tested) in eight countries was obtained from web sources, and the predictive values were calculated. Meta-regression was performed to reveal the effect of potential explanatory factors on the diagnostic performance measures. Results The pooled sensitivity was 94% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 91%, 96%; I2 = 95%) for chest CT and 89% (95% CI: 81%, 94%; I2 = 90%) for RT-PCR. The pooled specificity was 37% (95% CI: 26%, 50%; I2 = 83%) for chest CT. The prevalence of COVID-19 outside China ranged from 1.0% to 22.9%. For chest CT scans, the positive predictive value (PPV) ranged from 1.5% to 30.7%, and the negative predictive value (NPV) ranged from 95.4% to 99.8%. For RT-PCR, the PPV ranged from 47.3% to 96.4%, whereas the NPV ranged from 96.8% to 99.9%. The sensitivity of CT was affected by the distribution of disease severity, the proportion of patients with comorbidities, and the proportion of asymptomatic patients (all P < .05). The sensitivity of RT-PCR was negatively associated with the proportion of elderly patients (P = .01). Conclusion Outside of China where there is a low prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (range, 1%-22.9%), chest CT screening of patients with suspected disease had low positive predictive value (range, 1.5%-30.7%). © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article.