4.6 Article

Chest CT in patients with a moderate or high pretest probability of COVID-19 and negative swab

Journal

RADIOLOGIA MEDICA
Volume 125, Issue 12, Pages 1260-1270

Publisher

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s11547-020-01269-w

Keywords

COVID-19; RT-PCR; Nasopharyngeal swab; Computed tomography

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives We aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of CT in patients with a negative first RT-PCR testing and to identify typical features of COVID-19 pneumonia that can guide diagnosis in this case. Methods Patients suspected of COVID-19 with a negative first RT-PCR testing were retrospectively revalued after undergoing CT. CT was reviewed by two radiologists and classified as suspected COVID-19 pneumonia, non-COVID-19 pneumonia or negative. The performance of both first RT-PCR result and CT was evaluated by using sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and area under the curve (AUC) and by using the second RT-PCR test as the reference standard. CT findings for confirmed COVID-19 positive or negative were compared by using the Pearson chi-squared test (P values < 0.05) Results Totally, 337 patients suspected of COVID-19 underwent CT and nasopharyngeal swabs in March 2020. Eighty-seven out of 337 patients had a negative first RT-PCR result; of these, 68 repeated RT-PCR testing and were included in the study. The first RT-PCR test showed SE 0, SP = 100%, PPV = NaN, NPV = 70%, AUC = 50%, and CT showed SE = 70% SP = 79%, PPV = 86%, NPV = 76%, AUC = 75%. The most relevant CT variables were ground glass opacity more than 50% and peripheral and/or perihilar distribution. Discussion Negative RT-PCR test but positive CT features should be highly suggestive of COVID-19 in a cluster or community transmission scenarios, and the second RT-PCR test should be promptly requested to confirm the final diagnosis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available