COVID-19 and the role of imaging: early experiences in Central Switzerland

Fechner, Carsten; Strobel, Klaus; Treumann, Thomas; Sonderegger, Beat; Azzola, Andrea; Fornaro, Jürgen; Schrading, Simone; Roos, Justus E.

doi:10.4414/smw.2020.20304

Cited by 13 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Twelve studies focused on the estimation of diagnostic test accuracy, including populations with suspected COVID-19 at the beginning of the study (33, 36-38, 40, 43, 45, 46, 50, 56, 64). The remaining studies reported information from case series, most of which included confirmed cases of COVID-19 at the beginning of the study (34, 35, 41, 42, 44, 47-49, 51-55, 57-63, 65, 66). One study focused its data collection only on children (52) and other only on healthcare workers (47).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Included studies collected information from January 1 (57) to April 15, 2020 (40, 47); two studies did not provide complete information about the time of recruitment (34, 44). Ten studies were carried out in institutions outside of China (34, 36, 40, 44, 45, 47, 48, 51, 53, 60). The age of participants was reported heterogeneously in 21 studies providing information of COVID-19 confirmed cases (37-44, 46, 50, 52-54, 57, 58, 60-64, 66): for studies reporting a mean, the average ranged from 2.5 (52) to 56 years (57), while for studies reporting medians, the corresponding range was 45 (43) to 63 years (53).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In all cases, the presence of infection was confirmed after detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in any real-time RT-PCR assay that was repeated after a negative result. The specimens collected for the RT-PCR assessment were heterogeneous in most of the included studies; in 13 studies the authors reported the use of nasopharyngeal swabs (34-37, 44-46, 48, 51, 53, 57, 60, 65), along with oropharyngeal swabs in 7 out of these 13 studies (34-37, 44-46) (Table 1). The name/brand of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection kit used was reported by 19 studies (33-36, 45-51, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60-62, 64), and 13 studies reported the target genes under assessment for positivity (34, 45, 48-51, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 62, 64), with the ORFlab being the most frequently used (8 studies).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

False-Negative Results of Initial Rt-PCR Assays for Covid-19: A Systematic Review

Arévalo-Rodríguez

Buitrago-Garcia

Simancas‐Racines

et al. 2020

Preprint

386

372

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Cases with negative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results at initial testing for suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and found to be positive in a subsequent test, are considered as RT-PCR false-negative cases. False-negative cases have important implications for COVID-19 management, isolation, and risk of transmission. We aimed to review and critically appraise evidence about the proportion of RT-PCR false-negatives at initial testing for COVID-19. Methods: We performed a systematic review and critical appraisal of literature with high involvement of stakeholders in the review process. We searched on MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the WHO database of COVID-19 publications, the EPPI-Centre living systematic map of evidence about COVID-19, and the living systematic review developed by the University of Bern (ISPM). Two authors screened and selected studies according to the eligibility criteria and collected data of included studies (no-independent verification). Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We calculated the false-negative proportion with the corresponding 95% CI using a multilevel mixed-effect logistic regression model using STATA 16. Certainty of the evidence about false-negative cases was rated using the GRADE approach for tests and strategies. The information is current up to 6 April 2020. Findings: Five studies enrolling 957 patients were included. All studies were affected by several biases and applicability concerns. Pooled estimation of false-negative proportion was 0.085 (95% CI= 0.034 to 0.196; tau-squared = 1.08; 95% CI= 0.27 to 8.28; p<0.001); however, this estimation is highly affected by unexplained heterogeneity, and its interpretation should be avoided. The certainty of the evidence was judged as very low, due to the risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency issues. Conclusions: The collected evidence has several limitations, including risk of bias issues, high heterogeneity, and concerns about its applicability. Nonetheless, our findings reinforce the need for repeated testing in patients with suspicion of SARS-Cov-2 infection given that up to 29% of patients could have an initial RT-PCR false-negative result. Systematic review registration: Protocol available on OSF website: https://osf.io/gp38w/

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

False-Negative Results of Initial Rt-PCR Assays for Covid-19: A Systematic Review

Arévalo-Rodríguez

Buitrago-Garcia

Simancas‐Racines

et al. 2020

Preprint

386

372

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…В Швейцарии решение о проведении КТ органов грудной клетки должно приниматься только лечащими врачами пациента, например, в случае клинического ухудшения. Кроме того, КТ органов грудной клетки может быть использована у пациентов с отрицательным тестом ПЦР, но с сохраняющимся клиническим подозрением на пневмонию COVID-19 [25]. Китае.…”

unclassified

Comparison of Radiology Use in the Management of Covid-19 Patients in Different Countries of the World

Серова

Pshenichnikova

Shebunina

2020

Rejr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

андемия COVID-19 затронула практически все страны мира. Лучевые методы исследования играют ключевую роль не только в диагностике COVID-19, но и в оценке динамики течения заболевания, а также выявлении возможных осложнений. Однако тактика ведения пациентов, в том числе применения методов лучевой диагностики, значительно отличается в разных государствах. В данной статье приведены алгоритмы применения методов лучевой диагностики в тактике ведения пациентов с COVID-19 в США, России, Китае и странах Европейского региона, а также кратность и сроки проводимых исследований.

show abstract

Digital imaging, technologies and artificial intelligence applications during COVID-19 pandemic

Alhasan

Hasaneen²

2021

Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The advancement of technology remained an immersive interest for humankind throughout the past decades. Tech enterprises offered a stream of innovation to address the universal healthcare concerns. The novel coronavirus holds a substantial foothold of planet earth which is combatted by digital interventions across afflicted geographical boundaries and territories. This study aims to explore the trends of modern healthcare technologies and Artificial Intelligence (AI) during COVID-19 crisis, define the concepts and clinical role of AI in the mitigation of COVID-19, investigate and correlate the efficacy of AI-enabled technology in medical imaging during COVID-19 and determine advantages, drawbacks, and challenges of artificial intelligence during COVID-19 pandemic. The paper applied systematic review approach using a deliberated research protocol and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow chart. Digital technologies can coordinate COVID-19 responses in a cascade fashion that extends from the clinical care facility to the exterior of the pending viral epicenter. With cases of healthcare robotics, aerial drones, and the internet of things as evidentiary examples. PCR tests and medical imaging are the frontier diagnostics of COVID-19. Computed tomography helped to correct the accuracy variation of PCR tests at a clinical sensitivity of 98%. Artificial intelligence can enable autonomous COVID-19 responses using techniques like machine learning. Technology could be an endless system of innovation and opportunities when sourced effectively. Scientists can utilize technology to resolve global concerns challenging the history of tangible possibility. Digital interventions have enhanced the responses to COVID-19, magnified the role of medical imaging amid the COVID-19 crisis and have exposed healthcare professionals to the opportunity of contactless care.

show abstract

COVID-19 and the role of imaging: early experiences in Central Switzerland

Cited by 13 publications

References 18 publications

False-Negative Results of Initial Rt-PCR Assays for Covid-19: A Systematic Review

False-Negative Results of Initial Rt-PCR Assays for Covid-19: A Systematic Review

Comparison of Radiology Use in the Management of Covid-19 Patients in Different Countries of the World

Digital imaging, technologies and artificial intelligence applications during COVID-19 pandemic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About