Benedict Gereke1, Andree Friedl1, Jonas Rutishauser2, Benedikt Wiggli1, Tilo Niemann3, Romana Calligaris-Maibach4, Hans-Rudolf Schmid4, Chiara Vanetta5. 1. Departments of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases,Kantonsspital Baden, Baden, Switzerland. 2. Clinical Trial Unit, Kantonsspital Baden, Baden, Switzerland. 3. Departments of Radiology,Division of Infectious Diseases,Kantonsspital Baden, Baden, Switzerland. 4. Departments of Radiology,Division of Laboratory Medicine,Kantonsspital Baden, Baden, Switzerland. 5. ETH Zürich, Seminar for Statistics, Zürich, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: To assess the diagnostic performance of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), low-dose chest computed tomography (CT), and serological testing, alone and in combinations, as well as routine inflammatory markers in patients evaluated for COVID-19 during the first wave in early 2020. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data of all patients who were admitted to the emergency department due to fever and/or respiratory symptoms. CT scans were rated using the COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) suspicion score. True disease status (COVID-19 - positive vs. negative) was adjudicated by two independent clinicians. Receiver-operating characteristic curves and areas under the curves were calculated for inflammatory markers. Sensitivities and specificities were calculated for RT-PCR, CT, and serology alone, as well as the combinations of RT-PCR+CT, RT-PCR+serology, CT+serology, and all three modalities. RESULTS: Of 221 patients with a median age of 72 years, 113 were classified as COVID-19 positive. Among 180 patients from which data on CT and RT-PCR were available, RT-PCR had the highest sensitivity to detect COVID-19 (0.87; 95%CI=0.78-0.93). Notably, the addition of CT in the analysis increased sensitivity to 0.89 (95%CI=0.8-0.94), but lowered specificity from 1 (95%CI=0.96-1) to 0.9 (95%CI=0.83-0.95). The combination of RT-PCR, CT and serology (n=60 patients with complete dataset) yielded a sensitivity of 0.83 (95%CI=0.61-0.94) and specificity of 0.86 (95%CI=0.72-0.93). CONCLUSION: RT-PCR was the best single test in patients evaluated for COVID-19. Conversely, the routine performance of chest CT adds little sensitivity and decreases specificity.
BACKGROUND/AIM: To assess the diagnostic performance of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), low-dose chest computed tomography (CT), and serological testing, alone and in combinations, as well as routine inflammatory markers in patients evaluated for COVID-19 during the first wave in early 2020. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data of all patients who were admitted to the emergency department due to fever and/or respiratory symptoms. CT scans were rated using the COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) suspicion score. True disease status (COVID-19 - positive vs. negative) was adjudicated by two independent clinicians. Receiver-operating characteristic curves and areas under the curves were calculated for inflammatory markers. Sensitivities and specificities were calculated for RT-PCR, CT, and serology alone, as well as the combinations of RT-PCR+CT, RT-PCR+serology, CT+serology, and all three modalities. RESULTS: Of 221 patients with a median age of 72 years, 113 were classified as COVID-19 positive. Among 180 patients from which data on CT and RT-PCR were available, RT-PCR had the highest sensitivity to detect COVID-19 (0.87; 95%CI=0.78-0.93). Notably, the addition of CT in the analysis increased sensitivity to 0.89 (95%CI=0.8-0.94), but lowered specificity from 1 (95%CI=0.96-1) to 0.9 (95%CI=0.83-0.95). The combination of RT-PCR, CT and serology (n=60 patients with complete dataset) yielded a sensitivity of 0.83 (95%CI=0.61-0.94) and specificity of 0.86 (95%CI=0.72-0.93). CONCLUSION: RT-PCR was the best single test in patients evaluated for COVID-19. Conversely, the routine performance of chest CT adds little sensitivity and decreases specificity.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Tau Hong Lee; Ray Junhao Lin; Raymond T P Lin; Timothy Barkham; Pooja Rao; Yee-Sin Leo; David Chien Lye; Barnaby Young Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2020-11-19 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Carsten Fechner; Klaus Strobel; Thomas Treumann; Beat Sonderegger; Andrea Azzola; Jürgen Fornaro; Simone Schrading; Justus E Roos Journal: Swiss Med Wkly Date: 2020-06-22 Impact factor: 2.193
Authors: Nicole Ngai Yung Tsang; Hau Chi So; Ka Yan Ng; Benjamin J Cowling; Gabriel M Leung; Dennis Kai Ming Ip Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2021-04-12 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: J C L Rodrigues; S S Hare; A Edey; A Devaraj; J Jacob; A Johnstone; R McStay; A Nair; G Robinson Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2020-03-23 Impact factor: 2.350