Abstract
Objectives To compare the performance of chest computed tomography (CT) scan versus reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in the initial diagnostic assessment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.
Methods 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 to identify studies comparing the diagnostic performance within the same patient cohort of chest CT scan versus RT-PCR in COVID-19 suspected cases. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were primary outcome measures. Secondary outcomes included other test performance characteristics, discrepant findings between both investigations and main chest CT findings. Random effects modelling was used for the analyses.
Results Thirteen non-randomised studies enrolling 4092 patients were identified. Accuracy was statistically significantly higher for RT-PCR versus chest CT (Odds Ratio [OR] = 0.22, P = 0.001). Chest CT is also less specific than RT-PCR. Ground-glass opacities and consolidations were the most common chest CT manifestations. Importantly, early small studies tended to favour chest CT versus later larger studies.
Conclusion Chest CT is inferior to RT-PCR for the initial detection of COVID-19 and has more false positives. It may still be useful in confirming COVID-19, however, in patients with a suspicious clinical presentation, but who have a false-negative SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test.
Highlights
- Chest computed tomography (CT) is less specific in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) when compared to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR).
- The accuracy of RT-PCR is statistically significantly higher than chest CT for COVID-19.
- Chest CT, however, can detect false-negative and true-positive RT-PCR 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.
