Dataset Information

The accuracy of teleradiologists in diagnosing COVID-19 based on a French multicentric emergency cohort.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the accuracy of diagnoses of COVID-19 based on chest CT as well as inter-observer agreement between teleradiologists during on-call duty and senior radiologists in suspected COVID-19 patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS:From March 13, 2020, to April 14, 2020, consecutive suspected COVID-19 adult patients who underwent both an RT-PCR test and chest CT from 15 hospitals were included in this prospective study. Chest CTs were immediately interpreted by the on-call teleradiologist and were systematically blind reviewed by a senior radiologist. Readings were categorised using a five-point scale: (1) normal; (2) non-infectious findings; (3) infectious findings but not consistent with COVID-19 infection; (4) consistent with COVID-19 infection; and (5) typical appearance of COVID-19 infection. The diagnostic accuracy of chest CT and inter-observer agreement using the kappa coefficient were evaluated over the study period. RESULTS:In total, 513 patients were enrolled, of whom 244/513 (47.6%) tested positive for RT-PCR. First readings were scored 4 or 5 in 225/244 (92%) RT-PCR+ patients, and between 1 and 3 in 201/269 (74.7%) RT-PCR- patients. The data were highly consistent (weighted kappa = 0.87) and correlated with RT-PCR (p < 0.001, AUC1st-reading = 0.89, AUC2nd-reading = 0.93). The negative predictive value for scores of 4 or 5 was 0.91-0.92, and the PPV for a score of 5 was 0.89-0.96 at the first and second readings, respectively. Diagnostic accuracy was consistent over the study period, irrespective of a variable prevalence rate. CONCLUSION:Chest CT demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy with strong inter-observer agreement between on-call teleradiologists with varying degrees of experience and senior radiologists over the study period. KEY POINTS:• The accuracy of readings by on-call teleradiologists, relative to second readings by senior radiologists, demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.75-0.79, specificity of 0.92-0.97, NPV of 0.80-0.83, and PPV of 0.89-0.96, based on "typical appearance," as predictive of RT-PCR+. • Inter-observer agreement between the first reading in the emergency setting and the second reading by the senior emergency teleradiologist was excellent (weighted kappa = 0.87).

SUBMITTER: Nivet H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7594948 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The accuracy of teleradiologists in diagnosing COVID-19 based on a French multicentric emergency cohort.

Nivet Hubert H Crombé Amandine A Schuster Paul P Ayoub Thomas T Pourriol Laurent L Favard Nicolas N Chazot Alban A Alonzo-Lacroix Florian F Youssof Emile E Ben Cheikh Alexandre A Balique Julien J Porta Basile B Petitpierre François F Bouquet Grégoire G Mastier Charles C Bratan Flavie F Bergerot Jean-François JF Thomson Vivien V Banaste Nathan N Gorincour Guillaume G

European radiology 20201029 5

<h4>Objectives</h4>To evaluate the accuracy of diagnoses of COVID-19 based on chest CT as well as inter-observer agreement between teleradiologists during on-call duty and senior radiologists in suspected COVID-19 patients.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>From March 13, 2020, to April 14, 2020, consecutive suspected COVID-19 adult patients who underwent both an RT-PCR test and chest CT from 15 hospitals were included in this prospective study. Chest CTs were immediately interpreted by the on-call t ...[more]

PMID: 33123790

Similar Datasets

Project description:Our aim was to develop practical models built with simple clinical and radiological features to help diagnosing Coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19] in a real-life emergency cohort. To do so, 513 consecutive adult patients suspected of having COVID-19 from 15 emergency departments from 2020-03-13 to 2020-04-14 were included as long as chest CT-scans and real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results were available (244 [47.6%] with a positive RT-PCR). Immediately after their acquisition, the chest CTs were prospectively interpreted by on-call teleradiologists (OCTRs) and systematically reviewed within one week by another senior teleradiologist. Each OCTR reading was concluded using a 5-point scale: normal, non-infectious, infectious non-COVID-19, indeterminate and highly suspicious of COVID-19. The senior reading reported the lesions' semiology, distribution, extent and differential diagnoses. After pre-filtering clinical and radiological features through univariate Chi-2, Fisher or Student t-tests (as appropriate), multivariate stepwise logistic regression (Step-LR) and classification tree (CART) models to predict a positive RT-PCR were trained on 412 patients, validated on an independent cohort of 101 patients and compared with the OCTR performances (295 and 71 with available clinical data, respectively) through area under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUC). Regarding models elaborated on radiological variables alone, best performances were reached with the CART model (i.e., AUC = 0.92 [versus 0.88 for OCTR], sensitivity = 0.77, specificity = 0.94) while step-LR provided the highest AUC with clinical-radiological variables (AUC = 0.93 [versus 0.86 for OCTR], sensitivity = 0.82, specificity = 0.91). Hence, these two simple models, depending on the availability of clinical data, provided high performances to diagnose positive RT-PCR and could be used by any radiologist to support, modulate and communicate their conclusion in case of COVID-19 suspicion. Practically, using clinical and radiological variables (GGO, fever, presence of fibrotic bands, presence of diffuse lesions, predominant peripheral distribution) can accurately predict RT-PCR status.

Project description:ObjectiveSevere 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsWith 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.

Project description:Importance: An exacerbated inflammatory response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is believed to be one of the major causes of the morbidity and mortality of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Neuromodulation therapy, based on vagus nerve stimulation, was recently hypothesized to control both the SARS-CoV-2 replication and the ensuing inflammation likely through the inhibition of the nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells pathway and could improve the clinical outcomes as an adjunct treatment. We proposed to test it by the stimulation of the auricular branch of the vagus nerve, i.e., auricular neuromodulation (AN), a non-invasive procedure through the insertion of semipermanent needles on the ears. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of AN on the clinical outcomes in patients affected by COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial included 31 patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 requiring hospitalization. Within 72 h after admission, patients received either AN (n = 14) or sham neuromodulation (SN, n = 15) in addition to the conventional treatments. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary endpoint of the study was the rate of a clinical benefit conferred by AN at Day 14 (D14) as assessed by a 7-point Clinical Progression Scale. The secondary endpoint of the study was the impact of AN on the rate of transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU) and on the survival rate at D14. Results: The AN procedure was well-tolerated without any reported side effects but with no significant improvement for the measures of both primary (p > 0.3) and secondary (p > 0.05) endpoints at the interim analysis. None of the AN-treated patients died but one in the SN group did (81 years). Two AN-treated patients (73 and 79 years, respectively) and one SN-treated patient (59 years) were transferred to ICU. Remarkably, AN-treated patients were older with more representation by males than in the SN arm (i.e., the median age of 75 vs. 65 years, 79% male vs. 47%). Conclusion: The AN procedure, which was used within 72 h after the admission of patients with COVID-19, was safe and could be successfully implemented during the first two waves of COVID-19 in France. Nevertheless, AN did not significantly improve the outcome of the patients in our small preliminary study. It is pertinent to explore further to validate AN as the non-invasive mass vagal stimulation solution for the forthcoming pandemics. Clinical Trial Registration: [https://clinicaltrials.gov/], identifier [NCT04341415].

Dataset Information

The accuracy of teleradiologists in diagnosing COVID-19 based on a French multicentric emergency cohort.

Publications

The accuracy of teleradiologists in diagnosing COVID-19 based on a French multicentric emergency cohort.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets