• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Pol J Radiol . Chest computed tomography versus RT-PCR in early diagnostics of COVID-19 - a systematic review with meta-analysis

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Pol J Radiol


. 2021 Sep 10;86:e518-e531.
doi: 10.5114/pjr.2021.109074. eCollection 2021.
Chest computed tomography versus RT-PCR in early diagnostics of COVID-19 - a systematic review with meta-analysis


Izabella Santura[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Paweł Kawalec[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Maciej Furman[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Tomasz Bochenek[SUP] 1 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the sensitivity and specificity of computed tomography (CT) scans of the chests of patients with the reference reverse-transcription real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in early diagnosis of COVID-19. A systematic review with meta-analysis for numerical outcomes was performed, including 10 studies (6528 patients). High risk of systematic bias (spectrum bias) was demonstrated in all studies, while in several studies research information bias was found to be possible. The sensitivity of CT examination ranged from 72% to 98%, and the specificity from 22% to 96%. The overall sensitivity of the CT scan was 91% and the specificity 87% (95% CI). Overall sensitivity of the RT-PCR reference test was lower (87%) than its specificity (99%) (95% CI). No clear conclusion could be drawn on the rationale of using CT scanning in the early diagnosis of COVID-19 in situations when specific clinical symptoms and epidemiological history would indicate coronavirus infection. The sensitivity of the CT test seems to be higher than that of the RT-PCR reference test, but this may be related to the mode of analysis and type of material analysed in genetic tests. CT scanning could be performed in symptomatic patients, with a defined time interval from symptom onset to performing CT or RT-PCR, and it should be explicitly included as an additional procedure when initial coronavirus genetic test results are negative, while clinical symptoms and epidemiological history indicate possible infection. However, a reference test showing the presence of coronavirus genetic material is essential throughout the diagnostic and treatment process.

Keywords: COVID-19; CT; RT-PCR; sensitivity; specificity; systematic review.
 
Back
Top Bottom