tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging
. 2020 Jul 30;2(4):e200342.
doi: 10.1148/ryct.2020200342. eCollection 2020 Aug.
Suboptimal Quality and High Risk of Bias in Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies at Chest Radiography and CT in the Acute Setting of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review
Dominika Such?[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Robbert W van Hamersvelt[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Andor F van den Hoven[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Pim A de Jong[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Helena M Verkooijen[SUP] 1 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Abstract
Purpose: To synthesize the literature on diagnostic test accuracy of chest radiography, CT, and US for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients suspected of having COVID-19 in a hospital setting and evaluate the extent of suboptimal reporting and risk of bias.
Materials and methods: A systematic search was performed (April 26, 2020) in EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane to identify chest radiographic, CT, or US studies in adult patients suspected of having COVID-19, using reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction test or clinical consensus as the standard of reference. Two ? two contingency tables were reconstructed, and test sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values were recalculated. Reporting quality was evaluated by adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD), and risk of bias was evaluated by adherence to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2).
Results: Thirteen studies were eligible (CT = 12; chest radiography = 1; US = 0). Recalculated CT sensitivity and specificity ranged between 0.57 and 0.97, and 0.37 and 0.94, respectively, and positive predictive values and negative predictive values ranged between 0.59 and 0.92 and 0.57 and 0.96, respectively. On average, studies complied with only 35% of the STARD-guideline items. No study scored low risk of bias for all QUADAS-2 domains (patient selection, index test, reference test, and flow and timing). High risk of bias in more than one domain was scored in 10 of 13 studies (77%).
Conclusion: Reported CT test accuracy for COVID-19 diagnosis varies substantially. The validity and generalizability of these findings is complicated by poor adherence to reporting guidelines and high risk of bias, which are most likely due to the need for urgent publication of findings in the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic.Supplemental material is available for this article.? RSNA, 2020.
. 2020 Jul 30;2(4):e200342.
doi: 10.1148/ryct.2020200342. eCollection 2020 Aug.
Suboptimal Quality and High Risk of Bias in Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies at Chest Radiography and CT in the Acute Setting of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review
Dominika Such?[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Robbert W van Hamersvelt[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Andor F van den Hoven[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Pim A de Jong[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Helena M Verkooijen[SUP] 1 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 33778613
- PMCID: PMC7393956
- DOI: 10.1148/ryct.2020200342
Abstract
Purpose: To synthesize the literature on diagnostic test accuracy of chest radiography, CT, and US for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients suspected of having COVID-19 in a hospital setting and evaluate the extent of suboptimal reporting and risk of bias.
Materials and methods: A systematic search was performed (April 26, 2020) in EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane to identify chest radiographic, CT, or US studies in adult patients suspected of having COVID-19, using reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction test or clinical consensus as the standard of reference. Two ? two contingency tables were reconstructed, and test sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values were recalculated. Reporting quality was evaluated by adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD), and risk of bias was evaluated by adherence to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2).
Results: Thirteen studies were eligible (CT = 12; chest radiography = 1; US = 0). Recalculated CT sensitivity and specificity ranged between 0.57 and 0.97, and 0.37 and 0.94, respectively, and positive predictive values and negative predictive values ranged between 0.59 and 0.92 and 0.57 and 0.96, respectively. On average, studies complied with only 35% of the STARD-guideline items. No study scored low risk of bias for all QUADAS-2 domains (patient selection, index test, reference test, and flow and timing). High risk of bias in more than one domain was scored in 10 of 13 studies (77%).
Conclusion: Reported CT test accuracy for COVID-19 diagnosis varies substantially. The validity and generalizability of these findings is complicated by poor adherence to reporting guidelines and high risk of bias, which are most likely due to the need for urgent publication of findings in the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic.Supplemental material is available for this article.? RSNA, 2020.