For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
20
views
29
references
 Top references
cited by
19
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      228
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Diagnostic Performance of CO-RADS and the RSNA Classification System in Evaluating COVID-19 at Chest CT: A Meta-Analysis

      research-article
      Author(s): , MD PhD , , MD PhD, , MD PhD
      Publication date (Electronic):
      Journal: Radiology. Cardiothoracic Imaging
      Publisher: Radiological Society of North America

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          To determine the diagnostic performance of the COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) and the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) categorizations in patients with clinically suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection.

          Materials and Methods

          In this meta-analysis, studies from 2020, up to August 24, 2020 were assessed for inclusion criteria of studies that used CO-RADS or the RSNA categories for scoring chest CT in patients with suspected COVID-19. A total of 186 studies were identified. After review of abstracts and text, a total of nine studies were included in this study. Patient information ( n¸ age, sex), CO-RADS and RSNA scoring categories, and other study characteristics were extracted. Study quality was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool. Meta-analysis was performed with a random effects model.

          Results

          Nine studies (3283 patients) were included. Overall study quality was good, except for risk of non-performance of repeated reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) after negative initial RT-PCR and persistent clinical suspicion in four studies. Pooled COVID-19 frequencies in CO-RADS categories were: 1, 8.8%; 2, 11.1%; 3, 24.6%; 4, 61.9%; and 5, 89.6%. Pooled COVID-19 frequencies in RSNA classification categories were: negative 14.4%; atypical, 5.7%; indeterminate, 44.9%; and typical, 92.5%. Pooled pairs of sensitivity and specificity using CO-RADS thresholds were the following: at least 3, 92.5% (95% CI: 87.1, 95.7) and 69.2% (95%: CI: 60.8, 76.4); at least 4, 85.8% (95% CI: 78.7, 90.9) and 84.6% (95% CI: 79.5, 88.5); and 5, 70.4% (95% CI: 60.2, 78.9) and 93.1% (95% CI: 87.7, 96.2). Pooled pairs of sensitivity and specificity using RSNA classification thresholds for indeterminate were 90.2% (95% CI: 87.5, 92.3) and 75.1% (95% CI: 68.9, 80.4) and for typical were 65.2% (95% CI: 37.0, 85.7) and 94.9% (95% CI: 86.4, 98.2).

          Conclusion

          COVID-19 infection frequency was higher in patients categorized with higher CORADS and RSNA classification categories.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China

          Chaolin Huang, Yeming Wang, Xingwang Li … (2020)
          Summary Background A recent cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China, was caused by a novel betacoronavirus, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). We report the epidemiological, clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics and treatment and clinical outcomes of these patients. Methods All patients with suspected 2019-nCoV were admitted to a designated hospital in Wuhan. We prospectively collected and analysed data on patients with laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection by real-time RT-PCR and next-generation sequencing. Data were obtained with standardised data collection forms shared by WHO and the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium from electronic medical records. Researchers also directly communicated with patients or their families to ascertain epidemiological and symptom data. Outcomes were also compared between patients who had been admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and those who had not. Findings By Jan 2, 2020, 41 admitted hospital patients had been identified as having laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection. Most of the infected patients were men (30 [73%] of 41); less than half had underlying diseases (13 [32%]), including diabetes (eight [20%]), hypertension (six [15%]), and cardiovascular disease (six [15%]). Median age was 49·0 years (IQR 41·0–58·0). 27 (66%) of 41 patients had been exposed to Huanan seafood market. One family cluster was found. Common symptoms at onset of illness were fever (40 [98%] of 41 patients), cough (31 [76%]), and myalgia or fatigue (18 [44%]); less common symptoms were sputum production (11 [28%] of 39), headache (three [8%] of 38), haemoptysis (two [5%] of 39), and diarrhoea (one [3%] of 38). Dyspnoea developed in 22 (55%) of 40 patients (median time from illness onset to dyspnoea 8·0 days [IQR 5·0–13·0]). 26 (63%) of 41 patients had lymphopenia. All 41 patients had pneumonia with abnormal findings on chest CT. Complications included acute respiratory distress syndrome (12 [29%]), RNAaemia (six [15%]), acute cardiac injury (five [12%]) and secondary infection (four [10%]). 13 (32%) patients were admitted to an ICU and six (15%) died. Compared with non-ICU patients, ICU patients had higher plasma levels of IL2, IL7, IL10, GSCF, IP10, MCP1, MIP1A, and TNFα. Interpretation The 2019-nCoV infection caused clusters of severe respiratory illness similar to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and was associated with ICU admission and high mortality. Major gaps in our knowledge of the origin, epidemiology, duration of human transmission, and clinical spectrum of disease need fulfilment by future studies. Funding Ministry of Science and Technology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, National Natural Science Foundation of China, and Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission.
          Article 0 comments Cited 22281 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies.

            Penny F Whiting, Anne Rutjes, Marie E Westwood … (2011)
            In 2003, the QUADAS tool for systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies was developed. Experience, anecdotal reports, and feedback suggested areas for improvement; therefore, QUADAS-2 was developed. This tool comprises 4 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Each domain is assessed in terms of risk of bias, and the first 3 domains are also assessed in terms of concerns regarding applicability. Signalling questions are included to help judge risk of bias. The QUADAS-2 tool is applied in 4 phases: summarize the review question, tailor the tool and produce review-specific guidance, construct a flow diagram for the primary study, and judge bias and applicability. This tool will allow for more transparent rating of bias and applicability of primary diagnostic accuracy studies.
            Article 0 comments Cited 2852 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews.

              Johannes Reitsma, Afina Glas, Anne W.S. Rutjes … (2005)
              Studies of diagnostic accuracy most often report pairs of sensitivity and specificity. We demonstrate the advantage of using bivariate meta-regression models to analyze such data. We discuss the methodology of both the summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (sROC) and the bivariate approach by reanalyzing the data of a published meta-analysis. The sROC approach is the standard method for meta-analyzing diagnostic studies reporting pairs of sensitivity and specificity. This method uses the diagnostic odds ratio as the main outcome measure, which removes the effect of a possible threshold but at the same time loses relevant clinical information about test performance. The bivariate approach preserves the two-dimensional nature of the original data. Pairs of sensitivity and specificity are jointly analyzed, incorporating any correlation that might exist between these two measures using a random effects approach. Explanatory variables can be added to the bivariate model and lead to separate effects on sensitivity and specificity, rather than a net effect on the odds ratio scale as in the sROC approach. The statistical properties of the bivariate model are sound and flexible. The bivariate model can be seen as an improvement and extension of the traditional sROC approach.
              Article 0 comments Cited 500 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Robert M. Kwee:
                ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7760-867X
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging
                Journal ID (publisher-id): cardiothoracic
                Title: Radiology. Cardiothoracic Imaging
                Publisher: Radiological Society of North America
                ISSN (Electronic): 2638-6135
                Publication date (Electronic): 14 January 2021
                Publication date Collection: February 2021
                Volume: 3
                Issue: 1
                Electronic Location Identifier: e200510
                Affiliations
                [1]From the Department of Radiology, Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen/Sittard/Geleen, The Netherlands (R.M.K.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. (H.J.A.A.); Department of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands (T.C.K.)
                Author notes
                Correspondence R M.K. Email: rmkwee@ 123456gmail.com
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7760-867X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1049-7607
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9005-8529
                Article
                Publisher-manuscript ID: 200510
                DOI: 10.1148/ryct.2021200510
                PMC ID: 7808356
                PubMed ID: 33778660
                SO-VID: b0a7778c-3faf-430d-a1cd-7f70b91cb4d8
                Copyright © 2021 by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.
                License:

                This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic or until permissions are revoked in writing. Upon expiration of these permissions, PMC is granted a perpetual license to make this article available via PMC and Europe PMC, consistent with existing copyright protections.

                History
                Categories
                Subject: Original Research

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content228

                See all similar

                Cited by19

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,634

                See all reference authors