| Literature DB >> 34141092 |
Lorena Sousa de Carvalho1, Ronaldo Teixeira da Silva Júnior1, Bruna Vieira Silva Oliveira1, Yasmin Silva de Miranda1, Nara Lúcia Fonseca Rebouças1, Matheus Sande Loureiro1, Samuel Luca Rocha Pinheiro1, Regiane Santos da Silva1, Paulo Victor Silva Lima Medrado Correia1, Maria José Souza Silva1, Sabrina Neves Ribeiro1, Filipe Antônio França da Silva1, Breno Bittencourt de Brito1, Maria Luísa Cordeiro Santos1, Rafael Augusto Oliveira Sodré Leal1, Márcio Vasconcelos Oliveira1, Fabrício Freire de Melo2.
Abstract
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a global emergency, is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The gold standard for its diagnosis is the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, but considering the high number of infected people, the low availability of this diagnostic tool in some contexts, and the limitations of the test, other tools that aid in the identification of the disease are necessary. In this scenario, imaging exams such as chest X-ray (CXR) and computed tomography (CT) have played important roles. CXR is useful for assessing disease progression because it allows the detection of extensive consolidations, besides being a fast and cheap method. On the other hand, CT is more sensitive for detecting lung changes in the early stages of the disease and is also useful for assessing disease progression. Of note, ground-glass opacities are the main COVID-19-related CT findings. Positron emission tomography combined with CT can be used to evaluate chronic and substantial damage to the lungs and other organs; however, it is an expensive test. Lung ultrasound (LUS) has been shown to be a promising technique in that context as well, being useful in the screening and monitoring of patients, disease classification, and management related to mechanical ventilation. Moreover, LUS is an inexpensive alternative available at the bedside. Finally, magnetic resonance imaging, although not usually requested, allows the detection of pulmonary, cardiovascular, and neurological abnormalities associated with COVID-19. Furthermore, it is important to consider the challenges faced in the radiology field in the adoption of control measures to prevent infection and in the follow-up of post-COVID-19 patients. ©The Author(s) 2021. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Pandemic; Pneumonia; Radiology; SARS-CoV-2; Tomography
Year: 2021 PMID: 34141092 PMCID: PMC8188839 DOI: 10.4329/wjr.v13.i5.122
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Radiol ISSN: 1949-8470
Figure 1Highlights of imaging modalities in coronavirus disease 2019. CXR: Chest X-ray; CT: Computed tomography; 18F-FDG PET/CT: 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT; LUS: Lung ultrasound; MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging; GGO: Ground-glass opacities; RT-PCR: Real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction.
Figure 2Summary of chest computed tomography scores to assess coronavirus disease 2019. CT-SS: Computed tomography severity score; COVID-19: Coronavirus disease 2019; CO-RADS: COVID-19 Reporting and Data System; PO: Parenchymal opacification.
Sensibility and specificity of chest X-Ray and computed tomography for diagnosing COVID-19
|
|
|
|
| Sensibility | 61%[ | 90%[ |
| 55% | 93%[ | |
| 79% | 97%[ | |
| Specificity | 76%[ | 91%[ |
| 83% | 53%[ | |
| 70% | 25%[ |
At ≤ 2 d after symptom onset.
At > 11 d after symptom onset.
Figure 3Safety measures to prevent infection in the radiology department. COVID-19: Coronavirus disease 2019.