scholarly journals Nasopharyngeal versus nasal swabs for detection of SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
A.J. Gadenstaetter ◽  
C.D. Mayer ◽  
L.D. Landegger
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Medical Staff ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Testing Strategies ◽  
Specimen Collection ◽  
Nasal Swabs ◽  
Oropharyngeal Swab ◽  
Collection Methods

Nasopharyngeal swabbing (NPS) coupled with RT-PCR is the current gold standard for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infections. However, numerous studies have recently demonstrated the advantages of alternative nasal specimen collection approaches over NPS specifically for COVID-19 diagnosis. The present review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and summarises the current literature to give a clear overview of nasal specimen collection methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Publications investigating NPS and at least one other form of nasal specimen collection in combination with RT-PCR for viral detection in the context of COVID-19 were assessed. We identified 425 articles and ultimately included 18 studies in this systematic review. The suitable publications evaluated different forms of nasal specimen collection, with anterior nasal swabbing (ANS) and midturbinate swabbing (MTS) being the most frequently examined techniques. The analysed studies report sensitivity and specificity results (74.59-96.2% and 97.9-100.0%, respectively) similar to those achieved via NPS, especially in the early stages of disease or when paired with an oropharyngeal swab. Results from these studies suggest that ANS and MTS are suitable alternatives to NPS for COVID-19 testing. Due to their ease of collection, ANS and MTS collection techniques may facilitate broader testing strategies and allow for economization of medical staff.

scholarly journals Performance of Unobserved Self-Collected Nasal Swabs for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR Utilizing a Remote Specimen Collection Strategy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ron M Kagan ◽  
Amy A Rogers ◽  
Gwynngelle A Borillo ◽  
Nigel J Clarke ◽  
Elizabeth M Marlowe
Keyword(s):  
Return To Work ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
False Negative ◽  
N Gene ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Pooled Testing ◽  
Specimen Collection ◽  
Asymptomatic Patients ◽  
Nasal Swabs ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background The use of a remote specimen collection strategy employing a kit designed for unobserved self-collection for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR can decrease the use of PPE and exposure risk. To assess the impact of unobserved specimen self-collection on test performance, we examined results from a SARS-CoV-2 qualitative RT-PCR test for self-collected specimens from participants in a return-to-work screening program and assessed the impact of a pooled testing strategy in this cohort. Methods Self-collected anterior nasal swabs from employee return to work programs were tested using the Quest Diagnostics SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR EUA. The Ct values for the N1 and N3 N-gene targets and a human RNase P (RP) gene control target were tabulated. For comparison, we utilized Ct values from a cohort of HCP-collected specimens from patients with and without COVID-19 symptoms. Results Among 47,923 participants, 1.8% were positive. RP failed to amplify for 13/115,435 (0.011%) specimens. The median (IQR) Cts were 32.7 (25.0-35.7) for N1 and 31.3 (23.8-34.2) for N3. Median Ct values in the self-collected cohort were significantly higher than those of symptomatic, but not asymptomatic patients. Based on Ct values, pooled testing with 4 specimens would have yielded inconclusive results in 67/1,268 (5.2%) specimens but only a single false-negative result. Conclusions Unobserved self-collection of nasal swabs provides adequate sampling for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing. These findings alleviate concerns of increased false negatives in this context. Specimen pooling could be used for this population as the likelihood of false negative results is very low due when using a sensitive, dual-target methodology.

scholarly journals Diagnosis of SARS-Cov-2 Infection by RT-PCR Using Specimens Other Than Naso- and Oropharyngeal Swabs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 363
Author(s):  
Vânia M. Moreira ◽  
Paulo Mascarenhas ◽  
Vanessa Machado ◽  
João Botelho ◽  
José João Mendes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Sample Collection ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Oropharyngeal Swab ◽  
Nucleic Acid Assays

The rapid and accurate testing of SARS-CoV-2 infection is still crucial to mitigate, and eventually halt, the spread of this disease. Currently, nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) are the recommended standard sampling techniques, yet, these have some limitations such as the complexity of collection. Hence, several other types of specimens that are easier to obtain are being tested as alternatives to nasal/throat swabs in nucleic acid assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection. This study aims to critically appraise and compare the clinical performance of RT-PCR tests using oral saliva, deep-throat saliva/posterior oropharyngeal saliva (DTS/POS), sputum, urine, feces, and tears/conjunctival swab (CS) against standard specimens (NPS, OPS, or a combination of both). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrial.gov and NIPH Clinical Trial) were searched up to the 30th of December, 2020. Case-control and cohort studies on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 were included. The methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS 2). We identified 1560 entries, 33 of which (1.1%) met all required criteria and were included for the quantitative data analysis. Saliva presented the higher accuracy, 92.1% (95% CI: 70.0–98.3), with an estimated sensitivity of 83.9% (95% CI: 77.4–88.8) and specificity of 96.4% (95% CI: 89.5–98.8). DTS/POS samples had an overall accuracy of 79.7% (95% CI: 43.3–95.3), with an estimated sensitivity of 90.1% (95% CI: 83.3–96.9) and specificity of 63.1% (95% CI: 36.8–89.3). The remaining index specimens could not be adequately assessed given the lack of studies available. Our meta-analysis shows that saliva samples from the oral region provide a high sensitivity and specificity; therefore, these appear to be the best candidates for alternative specimens to NPS/OPS in SARS-CoV-2 detection, with suitable protocols for swab-free sample collection to be determined and validated in the future. The distinction between oral and extra-oral salivary samples will be crucial, since DTS/POS samples may induce a higher rate of false positives. Urine, feces, tears/CS and sputum seem unreliable for diagnosis. Saliva testing may increase testing capacity, ultimately promoting the implementation of truly deployable COVID-19 tests, which could either work at the point-of-care (e.g. hospitals, clinics) or at outbreak control spots (e.g., schools, airports, and nursing homes).

scholarly journals Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Detection Tests for Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 53 (12) ◽  
pp. 3738-3749 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Chartrand ◽  
Nicolas Tremblay ◽  
Christian Renaud ◽  
Jesse Papenburg
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Respiratory Syncytial Virus ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reference Standard ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Test Sensitivity ◽  
Subgroup Analyses ◽  
Syncytial Virus

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) rapid antigen detection tests (RADT) are extensively used in clinical laboratories. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of RADTs for diagnosis of RSV infection and to determine factors associated with accuracy estimates. We searched EMBASE and PubMed for diagnostic-accuracy studies of commercialized RSV RADTs. Studies reporting sensitivity and specificity data compared to a reference standard (reverse transcriptase PCR [RT-PCR], immunofluorescence, or viral culture) were considered. Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characteristics, diagnostic-accuracy estimates, and study quality. Accuracy estimates were pooled using bivariate random-effects regression models. Heterogeneity was investigated with prespecified subgroup analyses. Seventy-one articles met inclusion criteria. Overall, RSV RADT pooled sensitivity and specificity were 80% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76% to 83%) and 97% (95% CI, 96% to 98%), respectively. Positive- and negative-likelihood ratios were 25.5 (95% CI, 18.3 to 35.5) and 0.21 (95% CI, 0.18 to 0.24), respectively. Sensitivity was higher in children (81% [95% CI, 78%, 84%]) than in adults (29% [95% CI, 11% to 48%]). Because of this disparity, further subgroup analyses were restricted to pediatric data (63 studies). Test sensitivity was poorest using RT-PCR as a reference standard and highest using immunofluorescence (74% versus 88%;P< 0.001). Industry-sponsored studies reported significantly higher sensitivity (87% versus 78%;P= 0.01). Our results suggest that the poor sensitivity of RSV RADTs in adults may preclude their use in this population. Furthermore, industry-sponsored studies and those that did not use RT-PCR as a reference standard likely overestimated test sensitivity.

scholarly journals Suitability and Sufficiency of Telehealth Clinician-Observed, Participant-Collected Samples for SARS-CoV-2 Testing: The iCollect Cohort Pilot Study

10.2196/19731 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. e19731 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jodie L Guest ◽  
Patrick S Sullivan ◽  
Mariah Valentine-Graves ◽  
Rachel Valencia ◽  
Elizabeth Adam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nucleic Acid ◽  
Rnase P ◽  
Ribonuclease P ◽  
Laboratory Assessment ◽  
Testing Strategies ◽  
Specimen Collection ◽  
Oropharyngeal Swab ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Respiratory Coronavirus ◽  
Serology Testing

Background The severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic calls for expanded opportunities for testing, including novel testing strategies such as home-collected specimens. Objective We aimed to understand whether oropharyngeal swab (OPS), saliva, and dried blood spot (DBS) specimens collected by participants at home and mailed to a laboratory were sufficient for use in diagnostic and serology tests of SARS-CoV-2. Methods Eligible participants consented online and were mailed a participant-collection kit to support collection of three specimens for SARS-CoV-2 testing: saliva, OPS, and DBS. Participants performed the specimen collection procedures during a telehealth video appointment while clinical observers watched and documented the suitability of the collection. The biological sufficiency of the specimens for detection of SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction and serology testing was assessed by laboratorians using visual inspection and quantification of the nucleic acid contents of the samples by ribonuclease P (RNase P) measurements. Results Of the enrolled participants,153/159 (96.2%) returned their kits, which were included in this analysis. All these participants attended their video appointments. Clinical observers assessed that of the samples collected, 147/153 (96.1%) of the saliva samples, 146/151 (96.7%) of the oropharyngeal samples, and 135/145 (93.1%) of the DBS samples were of sufficient quality for submission for laboratory testing; 100% of the OPS samples and 98% of the saliva samples had cycle threshold values for RNase P <30, indicating that the samples contained sufficient nucleic acid for RNA-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2. Conclusions These pilot data indicate that most participant-collected OPS, saliva, and DBS specimens are suitable and sufficient for testing for SARS-CoV-2 RNA and serology. Clinical observers rated the collection of specimens as suitable for testing, and visual and quantitative laboratory assessment indicated that the specimens were biologically sufficient. These data support the utility of participant-collected and mailed-in specimens for SARS-CoV-2 testing. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/19054

scholarly journals Evaluation of RNA extraction free method for detection of SARS-COV-2 in salivary samples for mass screening for COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sally A. Mahmoud ◽  
Esra Ibrahim ◽  
Subhashini Ganesan ◽  
Bhagyashree Thakre ◽  
Juliet G Teddy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Rna Extraction ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
High Specificity ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Kappa Coefficient ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Good Percentage

AbstractIn this current COVID - 19 pandemic, there is a dire need for cost effective and less time-consuming alternatives for SARS-COV-2 testing. The RNA extraction free method for detecting SARS-COV-2 in saliva is a promising option, this study found that it has high sensitivity (85.34%), specificity (95.04%) and was comparable to the gold standard nasopharyngeal swab. The method showed good percentage of agreement (kappa coefficient) 0.797 between salivary and NPS samples. However, there are variations in the sensitivity and specificity based on the RT-PCR kit used. The Thermo Fischer-Applied biosystems showed high sensitivity, PPV and NPV but also showed higher percentage of invalid reports. Whereas the BGI kit showed high specificity, better agreement (kappa coefficient) between the results of saliva and NPS samples and higher correlation between the Ct values of saliva and NPS samples. Thus, the RNA extraction free method for salivary sample serves as an effective alternative for SARS-CoV 2-testing.

scholarly journals Comparative Assessment of Sensitivity and Specificity of Rose Bengal Test and Modified In-house ELISA by using IS711 TaqMan Real Time PCR Assay as a Gold Standard for the Diagnosis of Bovine Brucellosis

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 951-957
Author(s):  
Amira M. Zakaria
Keyword(s):  
Positive Predictive Value ◽  
Real Time ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Rose Bengal ◽  
Real Time Pcr ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Bovine Brucellosis ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Rose Bengal Test

Serological approaches such as Rose Bengal Test (RBT) and enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) are common tests, however they are generally not sensitive or specific enough for diagnosis of Brucella because of cross-reactivity with different bacterial antigens. The work objected to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of rose Bengal and modified in-house ELISA using IS711 real time PCR as a gold test to detect Brucella in calves sera. Two hundred and thirty (n=230) blood samples were collected from (2-3) years asymptomatic male calves in two Egyptian abattoirs. Rose Bengal test (RBT) and modified in-house ELISA were applied to determine the seroprevalence of brucellosis in abattoirs animals while quantitative Taqman real-time PCRs (RT-PCR) were implemented for the identification of Brucella genus. The overall prevalence of brucellosis was (53.9 %), (75.2 %) and (79.1 %) as determined by ELISA,RBT and RT- PCR assays respectively. Regarding statistical analysis of the reported data and considering real time PCR the gold standard, the RBT recorded a sensitivity of (79.12%) and a specificity of (39.58 %) with an accuracy of (70.87%). While (83.24%) was reported as positive predictive value and (33.33 %) as a negative predictive value. The sensitivity and specificity of ELISA were (55.49%) and (52.08 %) respectively while the accuracy was (54.78%). Positive predictive value and negative predictive value for ELISA were determined as (81.45%) and (23.58 %) respectively. RBT can be routinely used for diagnosis of Brucella as cost effective , more sensitive and accurate test than ELISA However, real time PCR is highly recommend as gold test for identification and differentiation of bovine brucellosis.

scholarly journals Suitability and Sufficiency of Telehealth Clinician-Observed, Participant-Collected Samples for SARS-CoV-2 Testing: The iCollect Cohort Pilot Study (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jodie L Guest ◽  
Patrick S Sullivan ◽  
Mariah Valentine-Graves ◽  
Rachel Valencia ◽  
Elizabeth Adam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nucleic Acid ◽  
Rnase P ◽  
Ribonuclease P ◽  
Laboratory Assessment ◽  
Testing Strategies ◽  
Specimen Collection ◽  
Oropharyngeal Swab ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Respiratory Coronavirus ◽  
Serology Testing

BACKGROUND The severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic calls for expanded opportunities for testing, including novel testing strategies such as home-collected specimens. OBJECTIVE We aimed to understand whether oropharyngeal swab (OPS), saliva, and dried blood spot (DBS) specimens collected by participants at home and mailed to a laboratory were sufficient for use in diagnostic and serology tests of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS Eligible participants consented online and were mailed a participant-collection kit to support collection of three specimens for SARS-CoV-2 testing: saliva, OPS, and DBS. Participants performed the specimen collection procedures during a telehealth video appointment while clinical observers watched and documented the suitability of the collection. The biological sufficiency of the specimens for detection of SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction and serology testing was assessed by laboratorians using visual inspection and quantification of the nucleic acid contents of the samples by ribonuclease P (RNase P) measurements. RESULTS Of the enrolled participants,153/159 (96.2%) returned their kits, which were included in this analysis. All these participants attended their video appointments. Clinical observers assessed that of the samples collected, 147/153 (96.1%) of the saliva samples, 146/151 (96.7%) of the oropharyngeal samples, and 135/145 (93.1%) of the DBS samples were of sufficient quality for submission for laboratory testing; 100% of the OPS samples and 98% of the saliva samples had cycle threshold values for RNase P &lt;30, indicating that the samples contained sufficient nucleic acid for RNA-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS These pilot data indicate that most participant-collected OPS, saliva, and DBS specimens are suitable and sufficient for testing for SARS-CoV-2 RNA and serology. Clinical observers rated the collection of specimens as suitable for testing, and visual and quantitative laboratory assessment indicated that the specimens were biologically sufficient. These data support the utility of participant-collected and mailed-in specimens for SARS-CoV-2 testing. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-10.2196/19054

scholarly journals Detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection in gargle, spit and sputum specimens

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henna Mäkelä ◽  
Eero Poukka ◽  
Lotta Hagberg ◽  
Thuan Vo ◽  
Hanna Nohynek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Close Contact ◽  
P Value ◽  
Risk Of Infection ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Ct Value ◽  
Specimen Collection ◽  
Mean Cycle ◽  
Alternative Specimen ◽  
Collection Methods

The gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis is RT-PCR from nasopharyngeal specimen (NPS). Its collection involves a close contact between patients and healthcare workers requiring a significant amount of workforce and putting them at risk of infection. We evaluated self-collection of alternative specimens and compared their sensitivity and Ct values to NPS. We visited acute COVID-19 outpatients to collect concomitant nasopharyngeal and gargle specimens and had patients self-collect a gargle and either sputum or spit specimens on the next morning. We included 40 patients and collected 40 concomitant nasopharyngeal and gargle specimens, as well as 40 gargle, 22 spit and 16 sputum specimens on the next day, as 2 patients could not produce sputum. All specimens were as sensitive as NPS. Gargle specimens had a sensitivity of 0.97 (CI 95% 0.92-1,00), whether collected concomitantly to NPS or on the next morning. Next morning spit and sputum specimens showed a sensitivity of 1.00 CI (95% 1.00-1.00) and 0.94 (CI 95% 0.87-1.00), respectively. The gargle specimens had a significantly higher mean cycle threshold (Ct) values, 29.89 (SD 4.63) (p-value <0.001) and 29.25 (SD 3.99) (p-value <0.001) when collected concomitantly and on the next morning compared to NPS (22.07, SD 4.63). Ct value obtained with spit (23.51, SD 4.57, p-value 0.11) and sputum (25.82, SD 9.21, p-value 0.28) specimens were close to NPS. All alternative specimen collection methods were as sensitive as NPS, but spit collection appeared more promising, with a low Ct value and ease of collection. Our findings warrant further investigation.

scholarly journals Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis

PLoS Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (8) ◽  
pp. e1003735
Author(s):  
Lukas E. Brümmer ◽  
Stephan Katzenschlager ◽  
Mary Gaeddert ◽  
Christian Erdmann ◽  
Stephani Schmitz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Symptom Onset ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Viral Load ◽  
Rapid Diagnostics ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Clinical Accuracy ◽  
High Utility

Background SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being integrated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs. Methods and findings We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix, bioRvix, and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 up until 30 April 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses, and rated study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 assessment tool. From a total of 14,254 articles, we included 133 analytical and clinical studies resulting in 214 clinical accuracy datasets with 112,323 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 71.2% (95% CI 68.2% to 74.0%) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6% to 99.1%), respectively. Sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.1% to 79.2%) if analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers’ instructions. LumiraDx showed the highest sensitivity, with 88.2% (95% CI 59.0% to 97.5%). Of instrument-free Ag-RDTs, Standard Q nasal performed best, with 80.2% sensitivity (95% CI 70.3% to 87.4%). Across all Ag-RDTs, sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, i.e., <20 (96.5%, 95% CI 92.6% to 98.4%) and <25 (95.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 97.8%), in comparison to those with Ct ≥ 25 (50.7%, 95% CI 35.6% to 65.8%) and ≥30 (20.9%, 95% CI 12.5% to 32.8%). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (83.8%, 95% CI 76.3% to 89.2%) compared to testing after 1 week (61.5%, 95% CI 52.2% to 70.0%). The best Ag-RDT sensitivity was found with anterior nasal sampling (75.5%, 95% CI 70.4% to 79.9%), in comparison to other sample types (e.g., nasopharyngeal, 71.6%, 95% CI 68.1% to 74.9%), although CIs were overlapping. Concerns of bias were raised across all datasets, and financial support from the manufacturer was reported in 24.1% of datasets. Our analysis was limited by the included studies’ heterogeneity in design and reporting. Conclusions In this study we found that Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2-infected persons within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load. Thus, they can have high utility for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease, making them a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization in conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data.

scholarly journals The sensitivity and specificity of chest CT in the diagnosis of COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anita Kovács ◽  
Péter Palásti ◽  
Dániel Veréb ◽  
Bence Bozsik ◽  
András Palkó ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
Close Contact ◽  
Chest Ct ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Ct Scans ◽  
Diagnostic Tools ◽  
Diagnostic Process ◽  
Rt Pcr

Abstract Purpose The identification of patients infected by SARS-CoV-2 is highly important to control the disease; however, the clinical presentation is often unspecific and a large portion of the patients develop mild or no symptoms at all. For this reason, there is an emphasis on evaluating diagnostic tools for screening. Chest CT scans are emerging as a useful tool in the diagnostic process of viral pneumonia cases associated with COVID-19. This review examines the sensitivity, specificity, and feasibility of chest CT in detecting COVID-19 compared with real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Methods Sensitivity and specificity of chest CT in detecting COVID-19 in its various phases was compared using RT-PCR as a gold standard. A “reverse calculation approach” was applied and treated chest CT as a hypothetical gold standard and compared RT-PCR to it point out the flaw of the standard approach. Results High sensitivity (67–100%) and relatively low specificity (25–80%) was reported for the CT scans. However, the sensitivity of RT-PCR was reported to be modest (53–88%), hence cannot serve as an appropriate ground truth. The “reverse calculation approach” showed that CT could have a higher specificity (83–100%) if we consider the modest sensitivity of the RT-PCR. Conclusions The sensitivity and specificity of the chest CT in diagnosing COVID-19 and the radiation exposure have to be judged together. Arguments are presented that chest CT scans have added value in diagnosing COVID-19 especially in patients, who exhibit typical clinical symptoms and have negative RT-PCR results in highly infected regions. Key Points • CT scans have higher specificity if we take into account the low sensitivity of the RT-PCR. • Avoid chest CT as a sole diagnostic approach for COVID-19 infection. • Patients who had negative RT-PCR result with typical clinical symptoms in highly infected regions or with close contact of COVID-19-infected patients; the use of chest CT is warranted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document