Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Chest CT versus RT-PCR for the detection of COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.
Karam, Mohammad; Althuwaikh, Sulaiman; Alazemi, Mohammad; Abul, Ahmad; Hayre, Amrit; Alsaif, Abdulmalik; Barlow, Gavin.
  • Karam M; School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
  • Althuwaikh S; School of Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
  • Alazemi M; School of Medical Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
  • Abul A; School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
  • Hayre A; School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
  • Alsaif A; School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
  • Barlow G; Experimental Medicine and Biomedicine, Hull York Medical School, University of York, York, UK.
JRSM Open ; 12(5): 20542704211011837, 2021 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1241097
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES:

To compare the performance of chest computed tomography (CT) scan versus reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as the reference standard in the initial diagnostic assessment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.

DESIGN:

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. A search of electronic information was conducted using the following databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

SETTING:

Studies that compared the diagnostic performance within the same patient cohort of chest CT scan versus RT-PCR in COVID-19 suspected patients.

PARTICIPANTS:

Thirteen non-randomised studies enrolling 4092 patients were identified. MAIN OUTCOME

MEASURES:

Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were primary outcome measures. Secondary outcomes included other test performance characteristics and discrepant findings between both investigations.

RESULTS:

Chest CT had a median sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 0.91 (range 0.82-0.98), 0.775 (0.25-1.00) and 0.87 (0.68-0.99), respectively, with RT-PCR as the reference. Importantly, early small, China-based studies tended to favour chest CT versus later larger, non-China studies.

CONCLUSIONS:

A relatively high false positive rate can be expected with chest CT. It is possible it may still be useful to provide circumstantial evidence, however, in some patients with a suspicious clinical presentation of COVID-19 and negative initial Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 RT-PCR tests, but more evidence is required in this context. In acute cardiorespiratory presentations, negative CT scan and RT-PCR tests is likely to be reassuring.
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Cohort study / Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials / Reviews / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Language: English Journal: JRSM Open Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: 20542704211011837

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Cohort study / Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials / Reviews / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Language: English Journal: JRSM Open Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: 20542704211011837