PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Michele Gaeta AU - Giuseppe Cicero AU - Maria Adele Marino AU - Tommaso D’Angelo AU - Enricomaria Mormina AU - Silvio Mazziotti AU - Alfredo Blandino AU - Giulio Siracusano AU - Aurelio La Corte AU - Massimo Chiappini AU - Giovanni Finocchio TI - EFFECTIVENESS OF BASELINE AND POST-PROCESSED CHEST X-RAY IN NONEARLY COVID-19 PATIENTS AID - 10.1101/2020.04.16.20061044 DP - 2020 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2020.04.16.20061044 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/17/2020.04.16.20061044.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/17/2020.04.16.20061044.full AB - Background CT is a very sensitive technique to detect pneumonia in COVID-19 patients. However, it is impaired by high costs, logistic issues and high risk of exposure.Chest x-ray (CXR) is a low-cost, low-risk, not time consuming technique and is emerging as the recommended imaging modality to use in COVID-19 pandemic.This technique, although less sensitive than CT-scan, can provide useful information about pulmonary involvement.Purpose To describe chest x-ray features of COVID-19 pneumonia and to evaluate the sensitivity of this technique in detecting pneumonia. A further scope is to assess the effectiveness of a post-processing algorithm in improving lung lesions detectability.Materials and Methods 72 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 underwent bedside chest X-ray.Two radiologists were asked to express their opinion about: (i) presence of pneumonia (negative or positive); (ii) localization (unilateral or bilateral); (iii) topography (according to pulmonary fields); (iv) density (non consolidative ground-glass or inhomogeneous opacities; consolidative nodular-type or triangular; mixed consolidative e non-consolidative); and (v) presence of pleural effusion. The point (i) was evaluated separately, while the other points in consensus.A quality assessment of post-processed x-ray images was performed by two different readers.Results The agreement about presence of pneumonia was almost perfect with K value of 0.933 and p < 0.001.Sensitivity was 69%.The following findings were seen: unilateral lung involvement in 50%; lower lung lesions in 54%; peripheral distribution in 48%; and non-consolidative pattern in 44%.Post-processed images improved the detection of lesions in 7 out 72 patients (≅10%)Conclusion CXR owns a good sensitivity in detecting COVID-19 lung involvement. Use of post-processing algorithm can improve detection of lesions. Our data support recommendations of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) to consider chest x-ray as first step imaging examination in Covid-19 patients.SUMMARY Bedside CXR has a good sensitivity in evaluating COVID-19 lung involvement in hospitalized patients and should be considered as the first step imaging technique according to RSNA recommendations.KEY RESULTSBedside CXR has a good sensitivity in evaluating COVID-19 lung involvement in non-early clinical cases.The most common findings of lung involvement were slight different from the well-described CT-ones, with less common patterns of bilateral and peripheral distribution.Post-processing algorithm enhances detection of pulmonary lesions.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialThe study was not registeredFunding StatementFunding available at the Policlinico Universitario G. Martino of MessinaAuthor DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData available on request to the corresponding author.