Dataset Information

Diagnosing COVID-19 in the Emergency Department: A Scoping Review of Clinical Examinations, Laboratory Tests, Imaging Accuracy, and Biases.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged as a global pandemic in early 2020 with rapidly evolving approaches to diagnosing the clinical illness called coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The primary objective of this scoping review is to synthesize current research of the diagnostic accuracy of history, physical examination, routine laboratory tests, real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), immunology tests, and computed tomography (CT) for the emergency department (ED) diagnosis of COVID-19. Secondary objectives included a synopsis of diagnostic biases likely with current COVID-19 research as well as corresponding implications of false-negative and false-positive results for clinicians and investigators.

Methods

A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR)-adherent synthesis of COVID-19 diagnostic accuracy through May 5, 2020, was conducted. The search strategy was designed by a medical librarian and included studies indexed by PubMed and Embase since January 2020.

Results

A total of 1,907 citations were screened for relevance. Patients without COVID-19 are rarely reported, so specificity and likelihood ratios were generally unavailable. Fever is the most common finding, while hyposmia and hypogeusia appear useful to rule in COVID-19. Cough is not consistently present. Lymphopenia is the mostly commonly reported laboratory abnormality and occurs in over 50% of COVID-19 patients. rRT-PCR is currently considered the COVID-19 criterion standard for most diagnostic studies, but a single test sensitivity ranges from 60% to 78%. Multiple reasons for false-negatives rRT-PCR exist, including sample site tested and disease stage during which sample was obtained. CT may increase COVID-19 sensitivity in conjunction with rRT-PCR, but guidelines for imaging patients most likely to benefit are emerging. IgM and IgG serology levels are undetectable in the first week of COVID-19, but sensitivity (range = 82% to 100%) and specificity (range = 87% to 100%) are promising. Whether detectable COVID-19 antibodies correspond to immunity remains unanswered. Current studies do not adhere to accepted diagnostic accuracy reporting standards and likely report significantly biased results if the same tests were to be applied to general ED populations with suspected COVID-19.

Conclusions

With the exception of fever and disorders of smell/taste, history and physical examination findings are unhelpful to distinguish COVID-19 from other infectious conditions that mimic SARS-CoV-2 like influenza. Routine laboratory tests are also nondiagnostic, although lymphopenia is a common finding and other abnormalities may predict severe disease. Although rRT-PCR is the current criterion standard, more inclusive consensus-based criteria will likely emerge because of the high false-negative rate of PCR tests. The role of serology and CT in ED assessments remains undefined.

SUBMITTER: Carpenter CR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7323136 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesClinicians have minimal guidance regarding the clinical consequences of each radiologic imaging option for suspected renal colic in the emergency department (ED), particularly in relation to patient-centered outcomes. In this scoping review, we sought to identify studies addressing the impact of imaging options on patient-centered aspects of ED renal colic care to help clinicians engage in informed shared decision making. Specifically, we sought to answer questions regarding the effect of obtaining computed tomography (CT; compared with an ultrasound or delayed imaging) on safety outcomes, accuracy, prognosis, and cost (financial and length of stay [LOS]).MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search using Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science conference proceedings index, and Google Scholar, identifying studies pertaining to renal colic, urolithiasis, and ureterolithiasis. In a prior qualitative study, stakeholders identified 14 key questions regarding renal colic care in the domains of safety, accuracy, prognosis, and cost. We systematically screened studies and reviewed the full text of articles based on their ability to address the 14 key questions.ResultsOur search yielded 2570 titles, and 68 met the inclusion criteria. Substantial evidence informed questions regarding test accuracy and radiation exposure, but less evidence was available regarding the effect of imaging modality on patient-oriented outcomes such as cost and prognosis (admissions, ED revisits, and procedures). Reviewed studies demonstrated that both standard renal protocol CT and low-dose CT are highly accurate, with ultrasound having lower accuracy. Several studies found that ureterolithiasis diagnosed by ultrasound was associated with overall reduced radiation exposure. Existing studies did not suggest choice of imaging influences prognosis. Several studies found no substantial differences in monetary cost, but LOS was found to be shorter if a diagnosis was made with point-of-care ultrasound.ConclusionThere is a plethora of data related to imaging accuracy. However, there is minimal data regarding the effect of CT on many patient-centered outcomes. Further research could improve the patient-centeredness of ED care.

Project description:BackgroundOver the last two decades, Emergency Department (ED) crowding has become an increasingly common occurrence worldwide. Crowding is a complex and challenging issue that affects EDs' capacity to provide safe, timely and quality care. This review aims to map the research evidence provided by reviews to improve ED performance.Methods and findingsWe performed a scoping review, searching Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL and PubMed (from inception to July 9, 2019; prospectively registered in Open Science Framework https://osf.io/gkq4t/). Eligibility criteria were: (1) review of primary research studies, published in English; (2) discusses a) how performance is measured in the ED, b) interventions used to improve ED performance and their characteristics, c) the role(s) of patients in improving ED performance, and d) the outcomes attributed to interventions used to improve ED performance; (3) focuses on a hospital ED context in any country or healthcare system. Pairs of reviewers independently screened studies' titles, abstracts, and full-texts for inclusion according to pre-established criteria. Discrepancies were resolved via discussion. Independent reviewers extracted data using a tool specifically designed for the review. Pairs of independent reviewers explored the quality of included reviews using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews tool. Narrative synthesis was performed on the 77 included reviews. Three reviews identified 202 individual indicators of ED performance. Seventy-four reviews reported 38 different interventions to improve ED performance: 27 interventions describing changes to practice and process (e.g., triage, care transitions, technology), and a further nine interventions describing changes to team composition (e.g., advanced nursing roles, scribes, pharmacy). Two reviews reported on two interventions addressing the role of patients in ED performance, supporting patients' decisions and providing education. The outcomes attributed to interventions used to improve ED performance were categorised into five key domains: time, proportion, process, cost, and clinical outcomes. Few interventions reported outcomes across all five outcome domains.ConclusionsED performance measurement is complex, involving automated information technology mechanisms and manual data collection, reflecting the multifaceted nature of ED care. Interventions to improve ED performance address a broad range of ED processes and disciplines.