From the Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA.
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco.
Invest Radiol. 2020 Dec;55(12):754-761. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000700.
Several studies suggest the sensitivity of chest computed tomography (CT) is far greater than that of reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in diagnosing COVID-19 patients, and therefore, CT should be included as a primary diagnostic tool. This systematic review aims to stratify studies as high or low risk of bias to determine the true sensitivity of CT for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection according to the unbiased (low risk) studies, a topic of particular importance given the insufficient quantity of RT-PCR kits in many countries. We focus on sensitivity as that is the chief advantage perceived of CT.
This systematic review involved searching the PubMed and Google Scholar databases for articles conducted and published between January 1 and April 15, 2020. The quality assessment tool QUADAS-2 was used to stratify studies according to their risk of bias, and exclusion criteria included not providing the information deemed relevant for such a stratification, such as not indicating if the patients were symptomatic or asymptomatic, or identifying the source of the specimen for the reference standard, RT-PCR (eg, nasal, oropharyngeal, etc). Sensitivity values were then extracted, and random effects meta-analyses were performed.
Of 641 search results, 37 studies (n = 9610 patients) were included in the analysis. The mean sensitivity of RT-PCR for COVID-19 reported by the biased studies was 70% (n = 5409/7 studies; 95% confidence interval [CI], 43-97; I = 99.1%), compared with 78% by unbiased studies (n = 534/4 studies; 95% CI, 69-87, I = 89.9%). For chest CT, the mean sensitivity reported by biased studies was 94% (n = 3371 patients/24 studies; 95% CI, 92-96; I = 93.1%), compared with 75% by unbiased studies (n = 957/10 studies; 95% CI, 67-83; I = 89.5%).
The difference between the sensitivities of CT and RT-PCR for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection is lower than previously thought, as after stratifying the studies, the true sensitivity for CT based on the unbiased studies is limited.
多项研究表明,胸部计算机断层扫描(CT)在诊断 COVID-19 患者方面的敏感性远高于逆转录聚合酶链反应(RT-PCR),因此 CT 应作为主要诊断工具。本系统评价旨在根据无偏倚(低风险)研究对研究进行分层,以确定 CT 对严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒-2 感染的真实敏感性,鉴于许多国家 RT-PCR 试剂盒数量不足,这是一个特别重要的主题。我们关注的是敏感性,因为这是 CT 的主要优势。
本系统评价包括在 2020 年 1 月 1 日至 4 月 15 日期间在 PubMed 和 Google Scholar 数据库中搜索文章。使用 QUADAS-2 质量评估工具根据偏倚风险对研究进行分层,排除标准包括未提供认为与分层相关的信息,例如未指明患者是否有症状或无症状,或未确定参考标准(例如 RT-PCR)的样本来源(例如鼻、口咽等)。然后提取敏感性值并进行随机效应荟萃分析。
在 641 项搜索结果中,有 37 项研究(n = 9610 例患者)纳入分析。有偏倚的研究报告的 RT-PCR 检测 COVID-19 的平均敏感性为 70%(n = 5409/7 项研究;95%置信区间[CI],43-97;I = 99.1%),而无偏倚的研究报告的敏感性为 78%(n = 534/4 项研究;95%CI,69-87,I = 89.9%)。对于胸部 CT,有偏倚的研究报告的平均敏感性为 94%(n = 3371 例患者/24 项研究;95%CI,92-96;I = 93.1%),而无偏倚的研究报告的敏感性为 75%(n = 957/10 项研究;95%CI,67-83;I = 89.5%)。
CT 和 RT-PCR 检测严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒-2 感染的敏感性之间的差异低于先前的预期,因为在对研究进行分层后,基于无偏倚研究的 CT 的真实敏感性是有限的。