Pulmonary embolism in patients with COVID-19 and value of D-dimer assessment: a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To investigate, in a meta-analysis, the frequency of pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with COVID-19 and whether D-dimer assessment may be useful to select patients for computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed for original studies which reported the frequency of PE on CTPA in patients with COVID-19. The frequency of PE, the location of PE, and the standardized mean difference (SMD) of D-dimer levels between patients with and without PE were pooled by random effects models. RESULTS: Seventy-one studies were included. Pooled frequencies of PE in patients with COVID-19 at the emergency department (ED), general wards, and intensive care unit (ICU) were 17.9% (95% CI: 12.0-23.8%), 23.9% (95% CI: 15.2-32.7%), and 48.6% (95% CI: 41.0-56.1%), respectively. PE was more commonly located in peripheral than in main pulmonary arteries (pooled frequency of 65.3% [95% CI: 60.0-70.1%] vs. 32.9% [95% CI: 26.7-39.0%]; OR = 3.540 [95% CI: 2.308-5.431%]). Patients with PE had significantly higher D-dimer levels (pooled SMD of 1.096 [95% CI, 0.844-1.349]). D-dimer cutoff levels which have been used to identify patients with PE varied between 1000 and 4800 µg/L. CONCLUSION: The frequency of PE in patients with COVID-19 is highest in the ICU, followed by general wards and the ED. PE in COVID-19 is more commonly located in peripheral than in central pulmonary arteries, which suggests local thrombosis to play a major role. D-dimer assessment may help to select patients with COVID-19 for CTPA, using D-dimer cutoff levels of at least 1000 µg/L. KEY POINTS: • The frequency of PE in patients with COVID-19 is highest in the ICU, followed by general wards and the ED. • PE in COVID-19 is more commonly located in peripheral than in central pulmonary arteries. • D-dimer levels are significantly higher in patients with COVID-19 who have PE.

Diagnostic Performance of CO-RADS and the RSNA Classification System in Evaluating COVID-19 at Chest CT: A Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: To determine the diagnostic performance of the COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) and the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) categorizations in patients with clinically suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this meta-analysis, studies from 2020, up to August 24, 2020 were assessed for inclusion criteria of studies that used CO-RADS or the RSNA categories for scoring chest CT in patients with suspected COVID-19. A total of 186 studies were identified. After review of abstracts and text, a total of nine studies were included in this study. Patient information (n¸ age, sex), CO-RADS and RSNA scoring categories, and other study characteristics were extracted. Study quality was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool. Meta-analysis was performed with a random effects model. RESULTS: Nine studies (3283 patients) were included. Overall study quality was good, except for risk of non-performance of repeated reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) after negative initial RT-PCR and persistent clinical suspicion in four studies. Pooled COVID-19 frequencies in CO-RADS categories were: 1, 8.8%; 2, 11.1%; 3, 24.6%; 4, 61.9%; and 5, 89.6%. Pooled COVID-19 frequencies in RSNA classification categories were: negative 14.4%; atypical, 5.7%; indeterminate, 44.9%; and typical, 92.5%. Pooled pairs of sensitivity and specificity using CO-RADS thresholds were the following: at least 3, 92.5% (95% CI: 87.1, 95.7) and 69.2% (95%: CI: 60.8, 76.4); at least 4, 85.8% (95% CI: 78.7, 90.9) and 84.6% (95% CI: 79.5, 88.5); and 5, 70.4% (95% CI: 60.2, 78.9) and 93.1% (95% CI: 87.7, 96.2). Pooled pairs of sensitivity and specificity using RSNA classification thresholds for indeterminate were 90.2% (95% CI: 87.5, 92.3) and 75.1% (95% CI: 68.9, 80.4) and for typical were 65.2% (95% CI: 37.0, 85.7) and 94.9% (95% CI: 86.4, 98.2). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 infection frequency was higher in patients categorized with higher CORADS and RSNA classification categories.

Peer review practices by medical imaging journals.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate peer review practices by medical imaging journals. METHODS: Journals in the category "radiology, nuclear medicine and medical imaging" of the 2018 Journal Citation Reports were included. RESULTS: Of 119 included journals, 62 (52.1%) used single-blinded peer review, 49 (41.2%) used double-blinded peer review, two (1.7%) used open peer review and one (0.8%) used both single-blinded and double-blinded peer reviews, while the peer review model of five journals (4.2%) remained unclear. The use of single-blinded peer review was significantly associated with a journal's impact factor (correlation coefficient of 0.218, P = 0.022). On subgroup analysis, only subspecialty medical imaging journals had a significant association between the use of single-blinded peer review and a journal's impact factor (correlation coefficient of 0.354, P = 0.025). Forty-eight journals (40.3%) had a reviewer preference option, 48 journals (40.3%) did not have a reviewer recommendation option, and 23 journals (19.3%) obliged authors to indicate reviewers on their manuscript submission systems. Sixty-four journals (53.8%) did not provide an explicit option on their manuscript submission Web site to indicate nonpreferred reviewers, whereas 55 (46.2%) did. There were no significant associations between the option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers and a journal's impact factor. CONCLUSION: Single-blinded peer review and the option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers are frequently employed by medical imaging journals. Single-blinded review is (weakly) associated with a higher impact factor, also for subspecialty journals. The option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers is evenly distributed among journals, regardless of impact factor.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Value of Chest CT in the Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): Sol Scientiae, Illustra Nos.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to systematically review and meta-analyze the diagnostic accuracy of chest CT in detecting coronavirus disease (COVID-19). MATERIALS AND METHODS. MEDLINE was systematically searched for publications on the diagnostic performance of chest CT in detecting COVID-19. Methodologic quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Meta-analysis was performed using a bivariate random-effects model. RESULTS. Six studies were included, comprising 1431 patients. All six studies included patients at high risk of COVID-19, and five studies explicitly reported that they included only symptomatic patients. Mean prevalence of COVID-19 was 47.9% (range, 27.6-85.4%). High or potential risk of bias was present throughout all QUADAS-2 domains in all six studies. Sensitivity ranged from 92.9% to 97.0%, and specificity ranged from 25.0% to 71.9%, with pooled estimates of 94.6% (95% CI, 91.9-96.4%) and 46.0% (95% CI, 31.9-60.7%), respectively. The included studies were statistically homogeneous in their estimates of sensitivity (p = 0.578) and statistically heterogeneous in their estimates of specificity (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION. Diagnostic accuracy studies on chest CT in COVID-19 suffer from methodologic quality issues. Chest CT appears to have a relatively high sensitivity in symptomatic patients at high risk of COVID-19, but it cannot exclude COVID-19. Specificity is poor. These data, along with other local factors such as COVID-19 prevalence, available real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction tests, staff, hospital, and CT scanning capacity, can be useful to healthcare professionals and policy makers to decide on the utility of chest CT for COVID-19 detection in the hospital setting.

Chest CT Imaging Signature of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection: In Pursuit of the Scientific Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Chest CT may be used for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but clear scientific evidence is lacking. Therefore, we systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed the chest CT imaging signature of COVID-19. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the chest CT imaging signature of COVID-19 infection? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed for original studies on chest CT imaging findings in patients with COVID-19. Methodologic quality of studies was evaluated. Pooled prevalence of chest CT imaging findings were calculated with the use of a random effects model in case of between-study heterogeneity (predefined as I2 ≥50); otherwise, a fixed effects model was used. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies were included. The median number of patients with COVID-19 per study was 124 (range, 50-476), comprising a total of 3,466 patients. Median prevalence of symptomatic patients was 99% (range, >76.3%-100%). Twenty-seven of the studies (96%) had a retrospective design. Methodologic quality concerns were present with either risk of or actual referral bias (13 studies), patient spectrum bias (eight studies), disease progression bias (26 studies), observer variability bias (27 studies), and test review bias (14 studies). Pooled prevalence was 10.6% for normal chest CT imaging findings. Pooled prevalences were 90.0% for posterior predilection, 81.0% for ground-glass opacity, 75.8% for bilateral abnormalities, 73.1% for left lower lobe involvement, 72.9% for vascular thickening, and 72.2% for right lower lobe involvement. Pooled prevalences were 5.2% for pleural effusion, 5.1% for lymphadenopathy, 4.1% for airway secretions/tree-in-bud sign, 3.6% for central lesion distribution, 2.7% for pericardial effusion, and 0.7% for cavitation/cystic changes. Pooled prevalences of other CT imaging findings ranged between 10.5% and 63.2%. INTERPRETATION: Studies on chest CT imaging findings in COVID-19 suffer from methodologic quality concerns. More high-quality research is necessary to establish diagnostic CT criteria for COVID-19. Based on the available evidence that requires cautious interpretation, several chest CT imaging findings appear to be suggestive of COVID-19, but normal chest CT imaging findings do not exclude COVID-19, not even in symptomatic patients.

Systematic review on the value of end-of-treatment FDG-PET in improving overall survival of lymphoma patients.

This study aimed to systematically review the value of end-of-treatment 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) in improving overall survival (OS) of lymphoma patients. Medline was systematically searched for (1) randomized trials comparing the OS of patients who underwent end-of-treatment FDG-PET to those without and FDG-PET-based end-of-treatment evaluation and for (2) non-randomized studies comparing the OS of patients who underwent end-of-treatment FDG-PET to a (historical) cohort of patients without an FDG-PET-based end-of-treatment evaluation. The Medline search revealed 6284 articles. However, none of these reported data on the value of end-of-treatment FDG-PET in improving OS of lymphoma patients. In conclusion, the present systematic review reveals that there is currently no study at all that evaluates the value of end-of-treatment FDG-PET in improving OS of lymphoma patients. As a result, it remains unknown whether end-of-treatment FDG-PET increases OS and in which lymphoma subtype these examinations are of particular value. Future studies are required to demonstrate its value in this setting before it can be recommended as an evidence-based diagnostic tool by guidelines on the use of imaging in lymphoma.

Proportion of false-positive follow-up FDG-PET scans in lymphoma: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

This study aimed to assess the false-positive proportion of follow-up 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in lymphoma patients who initially achieved an end-of-treatment complete remission, using biopsy as reference standard. Medline was searched for original studies, studies were methodologically evaluated and results were meta-analytically summarized. Proportion of false-positive results ranged between 9.5%-90.0%, with a weighted summary proportion (random effects) of 42.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 29.0%-58.0%). A separate subgroup analysis in symptomatic patients only again revealed a relatively high summary proportion of false-positive follow-up FDG-PET of 37.5% (random effects). In conclusion, the false-positive proportion of follow-up FDG-PET in lymphoma patients who initially achieved an end-of-treatment complete remission is high and remains high when a combination of clinical symptoms and follow-up FDG-PET is used. Therefore, biopsy remains compulsory and follow-up FDG-PET alone may be regarded as unreliable to define progression-free survival.