Cargando…
Suboptimal Quality and High Risk of Bias in Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies at Chest Radiography and CT in the Acute Setting of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review
PURPOSE: To synthesize the literature on diagnostic test accuracy of chest radiography, CT, and US for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients suspected of having COVID-19 in a hospital setting and evaluate the extent of suboptimal reporting and risk of bias. MATERIALS AND M...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Radiological Society of North America
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7393956/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33778613 http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/ryct.2020200342 |
_version_ | 1783565139603095552 |
---|---|
author | Suchá, Dominika van Hamersvelt, Robbert W. van den Hoven, Andor F. de Jong, Pim A. Verkooijen, Helena M. |
author_facet | Suchá, Dominika van Hamersvelt, Robbert W. van den Hoven, Andor F. de Jong, Pim A. Verkooijen, Helena M. |
author_sort | Suchá, Dominika |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To synthesize the literature on diagnostic test accuracy of chest radiography, CT, and US for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients suspected of having COVID-19 in a hospital setting and evaluate the extent of suboptimal reporting and risk of bias. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was performed (April 26, 2020) in EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane to identify chest radiographic, CT, or US studies in adult patients suspected of having COVID-19, using reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction test or clinical consensus as the standard of reference. Two × two contingency tables were reconstructed, and test sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values were recalculated. Reporting quality was evaluated by adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD), and risk of bias was evaluated by adherence to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2). RESULTS: Thirteen studies were eligible (CT = 12; chest radiography = 1; US = 0). Recalculated CT sensitivity and specificity ranged between 0.57 and 0.97, and 0.37 and 0.94, respectively, and positive predictive values and negative predictive values ranged between 0.59 and 0.92 and 0.57 and 0.96, respectively. On average, studies complied with only 35% of the STARD-guideline items. No study scored low risk of bias for all QUADAS-2 domains (patient selection, index test, reference test, and flow and timing). High risk of bias in more than one domain was scored in 10 of 13 studies (77%). CONCLUSION: Reported CT test accuracy for COVID-19 diagnosis varies substantially. The validity and generalizability of these findings is complicated by poor adherence to reporting guidelines and high risk of bias, which are most likely due to the need for urgent publication of findings in the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2020 |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7393956 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Radiological Society of North America |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73939562020-08-10 Suboptimal Quality and High Risk of Bias in Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies at Chest Radiography and CT in the Acute Setting of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review Suchá, Dominika van Hamersvelt, Robbert W. van den Hoven, Andor F. de Jong, Pim A. Verkooijen, Helena M. Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging Original Research PURPOSE: To synthesize the literature on diagnostic test accuracy of chest radiography, CT, and US for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients suspected of having COVID-19 in a hospital setting and evaluate the extent of suboptimal reporting and risk of bias. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was performed (April 26, 2020) in EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane to identify chest radiographic, CT, or US studies in adult patients suspected of having COVID-19, using reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction test or clinical consensus as the standard of reference. Two × two contingency tables were reconstructed, and test sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values were recalculated. Reporting quality was evaluated by adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD), and risk of bias was evaluated by adherence to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2). RESULTS: Thirteen studies were eligible (CT = 12; chest radiography = 1; US = 0). Recalculated CT sensitivity and specificity ranged between 0.57 and 0.97, and 0.37 and 0.94, respectively, and positive predictive values and negative predictive values ranged between 0.59 and 0.92 and 0.57 and 0.96, respectively. On average, studies complied with only 35% of the STARD-guideline items. No study scored low risk of bias for all QUADAS-2 domains (patient selection, index test, reference test, and flow and timing). High risk of bias in more than one domain was scored in 10 of 13 studies (77%). CONCLUSION: Reported CT test accuracy for COVID-19 diagnosis varies substantially. The validity and generalizability of these findings is complicated by poor adherence to reporting guidelines and high risk of bias, which are most likely due to the need for urgent publication of findings in the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2020 Radiological Society of North America 2020-07-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7393956/ /pubmed/33778613 http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/ryct.2020200342 Text en 2021 by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc. This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic or until permissions are revoked in writing. Upon expiration of these permissions, PMC is granted a perpetual license to make this article available via PMC and Europe PMC, consistent with existing copyright protections. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Suchá, Dominika van Hamersvelt, Robbert W. van den Hoven, Andor F. de Jong, Pim A. Verkooijen, Helena M. Suboptimal Quality and High Risk of Bias in Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies at Chest Radiography and CT in the Acute Setting of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review |
title | Suboptimal Quality and High Risk of Bias in Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies at Chest Radiography and CT in the Acute Setting of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review |
title_full | Suboptimal Quality and High Risk of Bias in Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies at Chest Radiography and CT in the Acute Setting of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review |
title_fullStr | Suboptimal Quality and High Risk of Bias in Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies at Chest Radiography and CT in the Acute Setting of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review |
title_full_unstemmed | Suboptimal Quality and High Risk of Bias in Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies at Chest Radiography and CT in the Acute Setting of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review |
title_short | Suboptimal Quality and High Risk of Bias in Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies at Chest Radiography and CT in the Acute Setting of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review |
title_sort | suboptimal quality and high risk of bias in diagnostic test accuracy studies at chest radiography and ct in the acute setting of the covid-19 pandemic: a systematic review |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7393956/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33778613 http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/ryct.2020200342 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT suchadominika suboptimalqualityandhighriskofbiasindiagnostictestaccuracystudiesatchestradiographyandctintheacutesettingofthecovid19pandemicasystematicreview AT vanhamersveltrobbertw suboptimalqualityandhighriskofbiasindiagnostictestaccuracystudiesatchestradiographyandctintheacutesettingofthecovid19pandemicasystematicreview AT vandenhovenandorf suboptimalqualityandhighriskofbiasindiagnostictestaccuracystudiesatchestradiographyandctintheacutesettingofthecovid19pandemicasystematicreview AT dejongpima suboptimalqualityandhighriskofbiasindiagnostictestaccuracystudiesatchestradiographyandctintheacutesettingofthecovid19pandemicasystematicreview AT verkooijenhelenam suboptimalqualityandhighriskofbiasindiagnostictestaccuracystudiesatchestradiographyandctintheacutesettingofthecovid19pandemicasystematicreview |