Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Chest CT versus RT-PCR for the Detection of COVID-19: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies

View ORCID ProfileMohammad Karam, Sulaiman Althuwaikh, Mohammad Alazemi, Ahmad Abul, Amrit Hayre, View ORCID ProfileAbdulmalik Alsaif, Gavin Barlow
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.22.20136846
Mohammad Karam
1School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Mohammad Karam
  • For correspondence: mhk130@outlook.com
Sulaiman Althuwaikh
2School of Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mohammad Alazemi
3School of Medical Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ahmad Abul
1School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Amrit Hayre
1School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Abdulmalik Alsaif
1School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Abdulmalik Alsaif
Gavin Barlow
4Experimental Medicine and Biomedicine, Hull York Medical School, University of York, York, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

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.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted December 12, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Chest CT versus RT-PCR for the Detection of COVID-19: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Chest CT versus RT-PCR for the Detection of COVID-19: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies
Mohammad Karam, Sulaiman Althuwaikh, Mohammad Alazemi, Ahmad Abul, Amrit Hayre, Abdulmalik Alsaif, Gavin Barlow
medRxiv 2020.06.22.20136846; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.22.20136846
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Chest CT versus RT-PCR for the Detection of COVID-19: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies
Mohammad Karam, Sulaiman Althuwaikh, Mohammad Alazemi, Ahmad Abul, Amrit Hayre, Abdulmalik Alsaif, Gavin Barlow
medRxiv 2020.06.22.20136846; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.22.20136846

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS)
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (217)
  • Allergy and Immunology (496)
  • Anesthesia (106)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1112)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (197)
  • Dermatology (141)
  • Emergency Medicine (275)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (508)
  • Epidemiology (9807)
  • Forensic Medicine (5)
  • Gastroenterology (481)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (2334)
  • Geriatric Medicine (223)
  • Health Economics (464)
  • Health Informatics (1569)
  • Health Policy (738)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (609)
  • Hematology (238)
  • HIV/AIDS (508)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (11674)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (617)
  • Medical Education (240)
  • Medical Ethics (67)
  • Nephrology (258)
  • Neurology (2162)
  • Nursing (134)
  • Nutrition (340)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (427)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (520)
  • Oncology (1187)
  • Ophthalmology (366)
  • Orthopedics (129)
  • Otolaryngology (221)
  • Pain Medicine (148)
  • Palliative Medicine (50)
  • Pathology (314)
  • Pediatrics (700)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (303)
  • Primary Care Research (268)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2196)
  • Public and Global Health (4693)
  • Radiology and Imaging (786)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (459)
  • Respiratory Medicine (625)
  • Rheumatology (276)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (227)
  • Sports Medicine (214)
  • Surgery (252)
  • Toxicology (43)
  • Transplantation (120)
  • Urology (94)