Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection based on CT scan vs RT-PCR: reflecting on experience from MERS-CoV

Al‐Tawfiq, Jaffar A.; Memish, Ziad A.

doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2020.03.001

Cited by 82 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our SeRT-PCR estimates were moderate to high and in line with current evidence 27 . Further, we demonstrated that SeRT-PCR remains constant throughout the first three weeks after the onset of symptoms: probability intervals are largely overlapping suggesting no significant differences between the first, second or third week.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Diagnostic accuracy estimates for COVID-19 RT-PCR and Lateral flow immunoassay tests with Bayesian latent class models

Kostoulas

Hartnack

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this work was to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of RT-PCR and Lateral flow immunoassay tests (LFIA) for COVID-19, depending on the time post symptom onset. Based on the cross-classified results of RT-PCR and LFIA, we used Bayesian latent class models (BLCMs), which do not require a gold standard for the evaluation of diagnostics. Data were extracted from studies that evaluated LFIA (IgG and/or IgM) assays using RT-PCR as the reference method. The cross-classified results of LFIA and RT-PCR were analysed separately for the first, second and third week post symptom onset. The SeRT-PCR was 0.695 (95% probability intervals: 0.563; 0.837) for the first week and remained similar for the second and the third week. The SeIgG/M was 0.318 (0.229; 0.416) for the first week and increased steadily. It was 0.755 (0.673; 0.829) and 0.927 (0.881; 0.965) for the second and third week, respectively. Both tests had a high to absolute Sp, with point median estimates for SpRT-PCR being consistently higher. SpRT-PCR was 0.990 (0.980; 0.998) for the first week. The corresponding value for SpIgG/M was 0.962 (0.905; 0.998). Further, Sp estimates for each test did not differ between weeks. BLCMs provide a valid and efficient alternative for evaluating the rapidly evolving diagnostics for COVID-19, under various clinical settings and for different risk profiles.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Diagnostic accuracy estimates for COVID-19 RT-PCR and Lateral flow immunoassay tests with Bayesian latent class models

Kostoulas

Hartnack

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The current gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 detection is a SARS-CoV-2especific, quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) testing from a nasal or pharyngeal swab, sputum or broncoalveolar lavage. 7,8 Following standard protocols, RNA needs to be extracted and the presence of viral RNA confirmed by RT-qPCR. This requires several potentially erroneous steps and several hours for sampling and evaluation.…”

Section: Q2mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid point-of-care testing for SARS-CoV-2 in a community screening setting shows low sensitivity

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tObjective: With the current SARS-CoV2 outbreak, countless tests need to be performed on potential symptomatic individuals, contacts and travellers. The gold standard is a quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR)ebased system taking several hours to confirm positivity. For effective public health containment measures, this time span is too long. We therefore evaluated a rapid test in a highprevalence community setting. Study design: Thirty-nine randomly selected individuals at a COVID-19 screening centre were simultaneously tested via qPCR and a rapid test. Ten previously diagnosed individuals with known SARS-CoV-2 infection were also analysed. Methods: The evaluated rapid test is an IgG/IgMebased test for SARS-CoV-2 with a time to result of 20 min. Two drops of blood are needed for the test performance. Results: Of 49 individuals, 22 tested positive by repeated qPCR. In contrast, the rapid test detected only eight of those positive correctly (sensitivity: 36.4%). Of the 27 qPCR-negative individuals, 24 were detected correctly (specificity: 88.9%). Conclusion: Given the low sensitivity, we recommend not to rely on an antibody-based rapid test for public health measures such as community screenings.

show abstract

“…However, these benefits must be balanced against the cost of CT, medical radiation dangers, or practical limitations in busy hospitals with hourly trauma and stroke arrivals and potentially time-dependent emergencies juxtaposed against advised CT shutdowns for COVID-19 cleaning requiring 30 or more minutes. 91,92 This cleaning time would also delay access to CT for every patient in the ED, thereby prolonging potential exposure to those in the ED to other patients with COVID-19. 92 Some propose that COVID-19 patients wear N95 masks and plastic bags over their heads to eliminate or reduce these cleaning times.…”

Section: Antigen Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosing COVID‐19 in the Emergency Department: A Scoping Review of Clinical Examinations, Laboratory Tests, Imaging Accuracy, and Biases

Carpenter

Mudd

West

et al. 2020

Academic Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) emerged as a global pandemic in early 2020 with rapidly evolving approaches to diagnosing the clinical illness called coronavirus disease (COVID‐19). The primary objective of this scoping review is to synthesize current research of the diagnostic accuracy of history, physical examination, routine laboratory tests, real‐time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (rRT‐PCR), immunology tests, and computed tomography (CT) for the emergency department (ED) diagnosis of COVID‐19. Secondary objectives included a synopsis of diagnostic biases likely with current COVID‐19 research as well as corresponding implications of false‐negative and false‐positive results for clinicians and investigators. Methods A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses–Scoping Review (PRISMA‐ScR)–adherent synthesis of COVID‐19 diagnostic accuracy through May 5, 2020, was conducted. The search strategy was designed by a medical librarian and included studies indexed by PubMed and Embase since January 2020. Results A total of 1,907 citations were screened for relevance. Patients without COVID‐19 are rarely reported, so specificity and likelihood ratios were generally unavailable. Fever is the most common finding, while hyposmia and hypogeusia appear useful to rule in COVID‐19. Cough is not consistently present. Lymphopenia is the mostly commonly reported laboratory abnormality and occurs in over 50% of COVID‐19 patients. rRT‐PCR is currently considered the COVID‐19 criterion standard for most diagnostic studies, but a single test sensitivity ranges from 60% to 78%. Multiple reasons for false‐negatives rRT‐PCR exist, including sample site tested and disease stage during which sample was obtained. CT may increase COVID‐19 sensitivity in conjunction with rRT‐PCR, but guidelines for imaging patients most likely to benefit are emerging. IgM and IgG serology levels are undetectable in the first week of COVID‐19, but sensitivity (range = 82% to 100%) and specificity (range = 87% to 100%) are promising. Whether detectable COVID‐19 antibodies correspond to immunity remains unanswered. Current studies do not adhere to accepted diagnostic accuracy reporting standards and likely report significantly biased results if the same tests were to be applied to general ED populations with suspected COVID‐19. Conclusions With the exception of fever and disorders of smell/taste, history and physical examination findings are unhelpful to distinguish COVID‐19 from other infectious conditions that mimic SARS‐CoV‐2 like influenza. Routine laboratory tests are also nondiagnostic, although lymphopenia is a common finding and other abnormalities may predict severe disease. Although rRT‐PCR is the current criterion standard, more inclusive consensus‐based criteria will likely emerge because of the high false‐negative rate of PCR tests. The role of serology and CT in ED assessments remains undefined.

show abstract

Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection based on CT scan vs RT-PCR: reflecting on experience from MERS-CoV

Cited by 82 publications

References 8 publications

Diagnostic accuracy estimates for COVID-19 RT-PCR and Lateral flow immunoassay tests with Bayesian latent class models

Diagnostic accuracy estimates for COVID-19 RT-PCR and Lateral flow immunoassay tests with Bayesian latent class models

Rapid point-of-care testing for SARS-CoV-2 in a community screening setting shows low sensitivity

Diagnosing COVID‐19 in the Emergency Department: A Scoping Review of Clinical Examinations, Laboratory Tests, Imaging Accuracy, and Biases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About