Chest imaging is often used as a complementary tool in the evaluation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, helping physicians to augment their clinical suspicion. Despite not being diagnostic for COVID-19, chest CT may help clinicians to isolate high suspicion patients with suggestive imaging findings. However, COVID-19 findings on CT are also common to other pulmonary infections and non-infectious diseases, and radiologists and point-of-care physicians should be aware of possible mimickers. This state-of-the-art review goal is to summarize and illustrate possible etiologies that may have a similar pattern on chest CT as COVID-19. The review encompasses both infectious etiologies, such as non-COVID viral pneumonia, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Pneumocystis jiroveci, and pulmonary granulomatous infectious, and non-infectious disorders, such as pulmonary embolism, fat embolism, cryptogenic organizing pneumonia, non-specific interstitial pneumonia, desquamative interstitial pneumonia, and acute and chronic eosinophilic pneumonia.

No abstract

No abstract

The hepatic diseases are extremely common in clinical practice. The correct classification of liver fibrosis is extremely important, as it influences therapy and predicts disease outcomes. The purpose of this study is to compare the diagnostic performance of point-shear wave elastography (pSWE) and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) in the hepatic fibrosis diagnostic. A meta-analysis was carried out based on articles published until October 2020. The articles are available at following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scientific Electronic Library Online, LILACS, Scopus, and CINAHL. Diagnostic performances were analyzed per METAVIR F2, using 3.5kPa as target fibrosis. Assessment of the methodological quality of the incorporated papers by the QUADAS-2 tool for pSWE and MRE. A total 2,153 studies articles were evaluated and 44 studies, comprising 6,081 patients with individual data, were included in the meta-analysis: 28 studies for pSWE and 16 studies for MRE. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.86 (95%CI 0.80–0.90) and 0.88 (95%CI 0.85–0.91), respectively, for pSWE, compared with 0.94 (95%CI 0.89–0.97) and 0.95 (95%CI 0.89–0.98) respectively, for MRE. The pooled SROC curve for pSWE shows in the area under the curve (AUC) of 0.93 (95%CI 0.90–0.95), whereas the AUC for MRE was 0.98 (95%CI 0.96–0.99). The diagnostic odds ratio for pSWE and MRE were 41 (95%CI 24–72) and 293 (95%CI 86–1000), respectively. There was statistically significant heterogeneity for pSWE sensitivity (I² = 85.26, P<0.001) and specificity (I² = 89.46, P<0.001). The heterogeneity for MRE also was significant for sensitivity (I² = 73.28, P<0.001) and specificity (I² = 87.24, P<0.001). Therefore, both pSWE and MRE are suitable modalities for assessing liver fibrosis. In addition, MRE is a more accurate imaging technique than pSWE and can be used as alternative to invasive biopsy.

No abstract