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:ObjectiveGiven the aging population and growing burden of frailty, we conducted this scoping review to describe the available literature regarding the use and impact of frailty assessment tools in the assessment and care of emergency department (ED) patients older than 60 years.MethodsA search was made of the available literature using the Covidence system using various search terms. Inclusion criteria comprised peer-reviewed literature focusing on frailty screening tools used for a geriatric population (60+ years of age) presenting to EDs. An additional search of PubMed, EBSCO, and CINAHL for articles published in the last 5 years was conducted toward the end of the review process (January 2023) to search specifically for literature describing interventions for frailty, yielding additional articles for review. Exclusion criteria comprised articles focusing on an age category other than geriatric and care environments outside the emergency care setting.ResultsA total of 135 articles were screened for inclusion and 48 duplicates were removed. Of the 87 remaining articles, 20 were deemed irrelevant, leaving 67 articles for full-text review. Twenty-eight were excluded for not meeting inclusion criteria, leaving 39 full-text studies. Use of frailty screening tools were reported in the triage, care, and discharge decision-making phases of the ED care trajectory, with varying reports of usefulness for clinical decision-making.ConclusionThe literature reports tools, scales, and instruments for identifying frailty in older patients at ED triage; multiple frailty scores or tools exist with varying levels of utilization. Interventions for frailty directed at the ED environment were scant. Further research is needed to determine the usefulness of frailty identification in the context of emergency care, the effects of care delivery interventions or educational initiatives for front-line medical professionals on patient-oriented outcomes, and to ensure these initiatives are acceptable for patients.

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.