Abstract
Background Thoracic CT imaging is widely used as a diagnostic method in the diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia. Radiological differential diagnosis and isolation of other viral agents causing pneumonia in patients gained importance, especially during the pandemic period.
Aims We aimed to investigate whether there is a difference between the CT imaging findings characteristically defined in COVID-19 pneumonia and the findings detected in pneumonia due to other viral agents, and which finding may be more effective in the diagnosis.
Study Design The study included 249 adult patients with pneumonia found in thorax CT examination and positive COVID-19 RT-PCR test and 94 patients diagnosed with non-COVID pneumonia (viral PCR positive, no bacterial/fungal agents were detected in other cultures) from the last 5 years before the pandemic. It was retrospectively analyzed using the PACS System. CT findings were evaluated by two radiologists with 5 and 20 years of experience who did not know to which group the patient belonged, and it was decided by consensus.
Methods Demographic data (age, gender, known chronic disease) and CT imaging findings (percentage of involvement, number of lesions, distribution preference, dominant pattern, ground-glass opacity distribution pattern, nodule, tree in bud sign, interstitial changes, crazy paving sign, reversed halo sign, vacuolar sign, halo sign, vascular enlargement, linear opacities, traction bronchiectasis, peribronchial wall thickness, air trapping, pleural retraction, pleural effusion, pericardial effusion, cavitation, mediastinal/hilar lymphadenopathy, dominant lesion size, consolidation, subpleural curvilinear opacities, air bronchogram, pleural thickening) of the patients were evaluated. CT findings were also evaluated with the RSNA consensus guideline and the CORADS scoring system. Data were divided into two main groups as non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 pneumonia and compared statistically with chi-square tests and multiple regression analysis of independent variables.
Results Two main groups; RSNA and CORADS classification, percentage of involvement, number of lesions, distribution preference, dominant pattern, nodule, tree in bud, interstitial changes, crazy paving, reverse halo vascular enlargement, peribronchial wall thickness, air trapping, pleural retraction, pleural/pericardial effusion, cavitation and mediastinal/hilar lymphadenopathy were compared, significant differences were found between the groups (p < 0.01). Multiple linear regression analysis of independent variables found a significant effect of reverse halo sign (β = 0.097, p <0.05) and pleural effusion (β = 10.631, p <0.05) on COVID-19 pneumonia.
Conclusion Presence of reverse halo and absence of pleural effusion was found to be efficient in the diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Istanbul Faculty of Medicine gave ethical approval for this work. Ethics committee approval was obtained in file no: 2020/897 and date: 21.8.2020, meeting no: 19.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I 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).
Yes
I 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.
Yes
Footnotes
rgcomert{at}gmail.com, edacanipek{at}gmail.com, drsevimmese{at}gmail.com, grkmitf{at}hotmail.com, atatuna{at}gmail.com, aagacfidan{at}hotmail.com, aslanmus70{at}hotmail.com, smerturk{at}gmail.com
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript