Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36894945›Full record

ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2023

Diagnostic accuracy of a set of clinical and radiological criteria for screening of COVID-19 using RT-PCR as the reference standard.

Mirella Cristine Oliveira, Karoleen Oswald Scharan, Bruna Isadora Thomés, Rafaella Stradiotto Bernardelli, Fernanda Baeumle Reese, Amanda Christina Kozesinski-Nakatani, Cintia Cristina Martins, Suzana Margareth Ajeje Lobo, Álvaro Réa-Neto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Frontiers in medicine · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
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

9 authors.

Mirella Cristine OliveiraCenter for Studies and Research in Intensive Care Medicine - CEPETI, Monte Castelo Street, 366, Curitiba, Paraná, 82590-300, Brazil.
Karoleen Oswald ScharanCenter for Studies and Research in Intensive Care Medicine - CEPETI, Monte Castelo Street, 366, Curitiba, Paraná, 82590-300, Brazil.
Bruna Isadora ThomésCenter for Studies and Research in Intensive Care Medicine - CEPETI, Monte Castelo Street, 366, Curitiba, Paraná, 82590-300, Brazil.
Rafaella Stradiotto BernardelliCenter for Studies and Research in Intensive Care Medicine - CEPETI, Monte Castelo Street, 366, Curitiba, Paraná, 82590-300, Brazil.
Fernanda Baeumle ReeseCenter for Studies and Research in Intensive Care Medicine - CEPETI, Monte Castelo Street, 366, Curitiba, Paraná, 82590-300, Brazil.
Amanda Christina Kozesinski-NakataniCenter for Studies and Research in Intensive Care Medicine - CEPETI, Monte Castelo Street, 366, Curitiba, Paraná, 82590-300, Brazil.
Cintia Cristina MartinsCenter for Studies and Research in Intensive Care Medicine - CEPETI, Monte Castelo Street, 366, Curitiba, Paraná, 82590-300, Brazil.
Suzana Margareth Ajeje LoboDepartament of Medicine, São José do Rio Preto Medical School, Brigadeiro Faria Lima avenue, 5416, São José do Rio Preto, São Paulo, 15090-000, Brazil.
Álvaro Réa-NetoCenter for Studies and Research in Intensive Care Medicine - CEPETI, Monte Castelo Street, 366, Curitiba, Paraná, 82590-300, Brazil. reaneto@uol.com.br.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe gold-standard method for establishing a microbiological diagnosis of COVID-19 is reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of a set of clinical-radiological criteria for COVID-19 screening in patients with severe acute respiratory failure (SARF) admitted to intensive care units (ICUs), using reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as the reference standard.

methodsDiagnostic accuracy study including a historical cohort of 1009 patients consecutively admitted to ICUs across six hospitals in Curitiba (Brazil) from March to September, 2020. The sample was stratified into groups by the strength of suspicion for COVID-19 (strong versus weak) using parameters based on three clinical and radiological (chest computed tomography) criteria. The diagnosis of COVID-19 was confirmed by RT-PCR (referent).

resultsWith respect to RT-PCR, the proposed criteria had 98.5% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 97.5-99.5%) sensitivity, 70% (95% CI 65.8-74.2%) specificity, 85.5% (95% CI 83.4-87.7%) accuracy, PPV of 79.7% (95% CI 76.6-82.7%) and NPV of 97.6% (95% CI 95.9-99.2%). Similar performance was observed when evaluated in the subgroups of patients admitted with mild/moderate respiratory disfunction, and severe respiratory disfunction.

conclusionThe proposed set of clinical-radiological criteria were accurate in identifying patients with strong versus weak suspicion for COVID-19 and had high sensitivity and considerable specificity with respect to RT-PCR. These criteria may be useful for screening COVID-19 in patients presenting with SARF.

Indexed as

COVID-19Respiratory Distress SyndromeCOVID-19 TestingHumansReference StandardsReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityCOVID-19 testingIntensive care unitsMass screeningSensitivity and specificityTomography

Identifiers

PMID36894945
PMCPMC9997428

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.