Abstract
Objectives To compare the performance of chest computed tomography (CT) scan versus reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as the reference standard in the initial diagnostic assessment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.
Design A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search of electronic information was conducted using the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL).
Setting Studies that compared the diagnostic performance within the same patient cohort of chest CT scan versus RT-PCR in COVID-19 suspected patients.
Participants Thirteen non-randomised studies enrolling 4092 patients were identified.
Main Outcome Measures Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were primary outcome measures. Secondary outcomes included other test performance characteristics and discrepant findings between both investigations.
Results Chest CT had a sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 0.91 (0.82-0.98), 0.775 (0.25-1.00) and 0.87 (0.68-0.99), respectively, with RT-PCR as the reference. Importantly, early small, China-based studies tended to favour chest CT versus later larger, non-China studies.
Conclusions A relatively high false positive rate can be expected with chest CT. It may still be useful, however, in patients with a suspicious clinical presentation of COVID-19 and a negative initial SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. In acute cardiorespiratory presentations, negative CT scan and RT-PCR tests is likely to be reassuring.
Highlights
- The median accuracy of chest computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is relatively high at 0.87 (range 0.68-0.99)
- Chest CT has relatively low specificity, even within the context of a pandemic, for the diagnosis of COVID-19 with an associated relatively high false positive rate
- Chest CT scan, however, appears to be able to detect most initially positive and most initially negative/subsequently positive RT-PCR diagnosed cases
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
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:
Institutional Review Board approval was not required because it amalgamates readily available published data.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
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
Data Availability
The author(s) declare(s) that they had full access to all of the data in this study and the author(s) take(s) complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
