胸部CT与RT-PCR对COVID-19检测诊断准确性的meta分析

D. Young, Liana Tatarian, G. Mujtaba, Priscilla T Chow, S. Ibrahim, G. Joshi, Haaris Naji, Phillip Berges, Krishna Akella, H. Sklarek, K. Hussain, A. Chendrasekhar
{"title":"胸部CT与RT-PCR对COVID-19检测诊断准确性的meta分析","authors":"D. Young, Liana Tatarian, G. Mujtaba, Priscilla T Chow, S. Ibrahim, G. Joshi, Haaris Naji, Phillip Berges, Krishna Akella, H. Sklarek, K. Hussain, A. Chendrasekhar","doi":"10.35248/2329-6925.20.8.392","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The rapid outbreak of COVID-19 has necessitated expedient methods of detection to prevent further spread and mortality from the virus. Currently, RT-PCR is considered the gold standard. However, its diagnostic priority compared to Chest CT remains unknown. Objective: We sought to perform a meta-analysis using retrospective studies comparing Chest CT and RT-PCR in COVID-19 detection among hospitalized patients. Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search using Pubmed and Google Scholar for studies comparing Chest CT and RT-PCR between January 1 and April 3, 2020. Outcomes included COVID-19 detection using RT-PCR alone, Chest CT alone, true positives when combining the two, and true negatives when combining the two. Results were reported as an odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI. Results: A total of 6 retrospective studies were included comparing RT-PCR with Chest CT. A total of 1,400 patients were enrolled (average age 46.28 ± 2.7 years, 41.6% were males). Chest CT was superior to RT-PCR for COVID-19 detection [OR 3.86, 95% CI (1.79- 8.31, p=0.0006)]. Heterogeneity (I2) was high (75%), but sensitivity analysis failed to reveal any single contributor to observed heterogeneity. Conclusion: Chest CT appears to be a more sensitive and quicker alternative to RT-PCR in the detection of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients, and may serve as a superior screening tool.","PeriodicalId":17397,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Vascular Medicine & Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Chest CT versus RT-PCR for Diagnostic Accuracy of COVID-19 Detection: A Meta-Analysis\",\"authors\":\"D. Young, Liana Tatarian, G. Mujtaba, Priscilla T Chow, S. Ibrahim, G. Joshi, Haaris Naji, Phillip Berges, Krishna Akella, H. Sklarek, K. Hussain, A. Chendrasekhar\",\"doi\":\"10.35248/2329-6925.20.8.392\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The rapid outbreak of COVID-19 has necessitated expedient methods of detection to prevent further spread and mortality from the virus. Currently, RT-PCR is considered the gold standard. However, its diagnostic priority compared to Chest CT remains unknown. Objective: We sought to perform a meta-analysis using retrospective studies comparing Chest CT and RT-PCR in COVID-19 detection among hospitalized patients. Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search using Pubmed and Google Scholar for studies comparing Chest CT and RT-PCR between January 1 and April 3, 2020. Outcomes included COVID-19 detection using RT-PCR alone, Chest CT alone, true positives when combining the two, and true negatives when combining the two. Results were reported as an odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI. Results: A total of 6 retrospective studies were included comparing RT-PCR with Chest CT. A total of 1,400 patients were enrolled (average age 46.28 ± 2.7 years, 41.6% were males). Chest CT was superior to RT-PCR for COVID-19 detection [OR 3.86, 95% CI (1.79- 8.31, p=0.0006)]. Heterogeneity (I2) was high (75%), but sensitivity analysis failed to reveal any single contributor to observed heterogeneity. Conclusion: Chest CT appears to be a more sensitive and quicker alternative to RT-PCR in the detection of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients, and may serve as a superior screening tool.\",\"PeriodicalId\":17397,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Vascular Medicine & Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Vascular Medicine & Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.35248/2329-6925.20.8.392\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Vascular Medicine & Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35248/2329-6925.20.8.392","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

背景:COVID-19的快速暴发需要权宜的检测方法,以防止病毒的进一步传播和死亡。目前,RT-PCR被认为是金标准。然而,与胸部CT相比,其诊断优先级尚不清楚。目的:我们试图通过回顾性研究比较胸部CT和RT-PCR在住院患者中检测COVID-19的meta分析。方法:我们使用Pubmed和Google Scholar进行了全面的文献检索,以比较2020年1月1日至4月3日期间胸部CT和RT-PCR的研究。结果包括单独使用RT-PCR检测COVID-19,单独使用胸部CT检测,两者结合时为真阳性,两者结合时为真阴性。结果以95% CI的优势比(OR)报告。结果:共纳入6项回顾性研究,将RT-PCR与胸部CT进行比较。共入组患者1400例,平均年龄46.28±2.7岁,男性41.6%。胸部CT对COVID-19的检测优于RT-PCR [OR 3.86, 95% CI (1.79 ~ 8.31, p=0.0006)]。异质性(I2)很高(75%),但敏感性分析未能揭示观察到的异质性的任何单一因素。结论:胸部CT检测新冠肺炎在住院患者中比RT-PCR检测更灵敏、更快速,可能是一种更好的筛查工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Chest CT versus RT-PCR for Diagnostic Accuracy of COVID-19 Detection: A Meta-Analysis
Background: The rapid outbreak of COVID-19 has necessitated expedient methods of detection to prevent further spread and mortality from the virus. Currently, RT-PCR is considered the gold standard. However, its diagnostic priority compared to Chest CT remains unknown. Objective: We sought to perform a meta-analysis using retrospective studies comparing Chest CT and RT-PCR in COVID-19 detection among hospitalized patients. Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search using Pubmed and Google Scholar for studies comparing Chest CT and RT-PCR between January 1 and April 3, 2020. Outcomes included COVID-19 detection using RT-PCR alone, Chest CT alone, true positives when combining the two, and true negatives when combining the two. Results were reported as an odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI. Results: A total of 6 retrospective studies were included comparing RT-PCR with Chest CT. A total of 1,400 patients were enrolled (average age 46.28 ± 2.7 years, 41.6% were males). Chest CT was superior to RT-PCR for COVID-19 detection [OR 3.86, 95% CI (1.79- 8.31, p=0.0006)]. Heterogeneity (I2) was high (75%), but sensitivity analysis failed to reveal any single contributor to observed heterogeneity. Conclusion: Chest CT appears to be a more sensitive and quicker alternative to RT-PCR in the detection of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients, and may serve as a superior screening tool.
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信