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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Suchá, Dominika, van Hamersvelt, Robbert W., van den Hoven, Andor F., de Jong, Pim A., Verkooijen, Helena M.
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