Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32644268›Full record

SynthesisColorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland2020

A systematic review of CT chest in COVID-19 diagnosis and its potential application in a surgical setting.

J M Shao, S A Ayuso, E B Deerenberg, S A Elhage, V A Augenstein, B T Heniford

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Safe Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Current obesity reports · 2022
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

J M ShaoGastrointestinal and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9182-9548
S A AyusoGastrointestinal and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.
E B DeerenbergGastrointestinal and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1421-8567
S A ElhageGastrointestinal and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2236-2638
V A AugensteinGastrointestinal and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4507-9707
B T HenifordGastrointestinal and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1864-6048

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe aim of this work was to investigate the sensitivity and utility of CT of the chest in diagnosing active SARS-Cov-2 (COVID-19) infection, and its potential application to the surgical setting.

methodA literature review was conducted using Google Scholar® and MEDLINE®/PubMed® to identify current available evidence regarding the sensitivity of CT chest compared with RT-PCR for the diagnosis of COVID-19-positive patients. GRADE criteria and the QUADAS 2 tool were used to assess the level of evidence.

resultsA total of 20 articles were identified that addressed the question of sensitivity of CT for diagnosis of symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID-19-positive patients. Overall sensitivity of CT scan ranged from 57%-100% for symptomatic and 46%-100% for asymptomatic COVID-19 patients, while that of RT-PCR ranged from 39%-89%. CT chest was a better diagnostic modality and capable of detecting active infection earlier in the time course of infection than RT-PCR in symptomatic patients. In asymptomatic patients, disease prevalence seems to play a role in the positive predictive value. Minimal evidence exists regarding the sensitivity of CT in patients who are asymptomatic.

conclusionsIn surgical patients, CT chest should be considered as an important adjunct for detection of COVID-19 infection in patients who are symptomatic with negative RT-PCR prior to any operation. For surgical patients who are asymptomatic, there is insufficient evidence to recommend routine preoperative CT chest for COVID-19 screening.

Indexed as

Asymptomatic InfectionsCOVID-19 Nucleic Acid TestingTomography, X-Ray ComputedCOVID-19Disease ProgressionElective Surgical ProceduresHumansLungMass ScreeningPredictive Value of TestsPreoperative CarePrevalenceSensitivity and SpecificityCOVID-19CT ChestRT-PCRSensitivity

Identifiers

PMID32644268
PMCPMC7361755

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.