新冠肺炎的CT检查:诊断和预测所需的方案、辐射剂量和数量的系统回顾。

Taehan Yongsang Uihakhoe chi Pub Date : 2021-11-01 Epub Date: 2021-11-04 DOI:10.3348/jksr.2021.0096
Jong Hyuk Lee, Hyunsook Hong, Hyungjin Kim, Chang Hyun Lee, Jin Mo Goo, Soon Ho Yoon
{"title":"新冠肺炎的CT检查:诊断和预测所需的方案、辐射剂量和数量的系统回顾。","authors":"Jong Hyuk Lee,&nbsp;Hyunsook Hong,&nbsp;Hyungjin Kim,&nbsp;Chang Hyun Lee,&nbsp;Jin Mo Goo,&nbsp;Soon Ho Yoon","doi":"10.3348/jksr.2021.0096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":74904,"journal":{"name":"Taehan Yongsang Uihakhoe chi","volume":"82 6","pages":"1505-1523"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/25/a4/jksr-82-1505.PMC9431975.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"CT Examinations for COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Protocols, Radiation Dose, and Numbers Needed to Diagnose and Predict.\",\"authors\":\"Jong Hyuk Lee,&nbsp;Hyunsook Hong,&nbsp;Hyungjin Kim,&nbsp;Chang Hyun Lee,&nbsp;Jin Mo Goo,&nbsp;Soon Ho Yoon\",\"doi\":\"10.3348/jksr.2021.0096\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74904,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Taehan Yongsang Uihakhoe chi\",\"volume\":\"82 6\",\"pages\":\"1505-1523\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/25/a4/jksr-82-1505.PMC9431975.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Taehan Yongsang Uihakhoe chi\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2021.0096\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/11/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Taehan Yongsang Uihakhoe chi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2021.0096","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/11/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目的:尽管胸部CT已被讨论为2019冠状病毒病(新冠肺炎)的一线检测,但很少有研究探讨CT暴露对人群的影响。回顾新冠肺炎出版物中的胸部CT方案和辐射剂量,并探讨诊断所需的数量(NND)和如果将CT用作一线检测所需的预测数量(NNP)。材料和方法:我们搜索了九本被高度引用的放射学杂志,以确定讨论新冠肺炎肺炎基于CT诊断的研究。收集有关CT方案和辐射剂量的研究水平信息,并将剂量与每个国家诊断参考水平(DRL)进行比较。计算了取决于检测阳性率(TPR)的NND和NNP,CT敏感性为94%(95%置信区间[CI]:91%-96%),特异性为37%(95%CI:26%-50%),并将其应用于武汉、纽约和意大利的早期疫情。结果:86项研究中,分别有81项(94.2%)和17项(19.8%)报告了CT方案和辐射剂量。低剂量胸部CT的使用频率是标准剂量胸部CT(39.5%对186%)的两倍多,而其余研究(44.2%)没有提供相关信息。在报告剂量的17项研究中,有15项(88.2%)的辐射剂量低于国家DRL。NND为3.2次扫描(95%可信区间:2.2-6.0)。TPR为50%、25%、10%和5%时的NNP分别为2.2、3.6、8.0和15.5次扫描。在武汉,估计有35418人(TPR,58%;95%置信区间:27710-56755)至44840人(TPR:38%;95%置信度:35161-68164)接受了CT检查,以诊断17365名患者。在纽约和意大利的早期激增期间,10周内每日NND分别变化了5.4和10.9倍。结论:在不到一半的新冠肺炎出版物中描述了低剂量CT方案,并且经常缺乏辐射剂量。参与一线诊断CT测试的人群数量可能会根据每日TPR动态变化;因此,在未来的规划中需要谨慎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

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

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

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

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信