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

Christopher R Carpenter, Philip A Mudd, Colin P West, Erin Wilber, Scott T Wilber, Christopher R Carpenter, Philip A Mudd, Colin P West, Erin Wilber, Scott T Wilber

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.

© 2020 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Diagnosing COVID‐19 in the ED requires assessment of exposure history and presenting signs and symptoms, interpretation of routine laboratory tests and imaging, and rRT‐PCR testing. Repeat rRT‐PCR testing is sometimes required to rule out the diagnosis. In some cases, CT and antigen testing may enhance diagnostic accuracy. The role of antibody testing for surveillance or ED decision making remains undefined. Image created by Kai Choummanivong. rRT‐PCR = real‐time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Study selection process. rRT‐PCR = real‐time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction.
Figure 3
Figure 3
False‐positive and false‐negative rates as a function of pretest probability (or prevalence for surveillance studies) for serologic tests for SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies. The left side of the graph illustrates the false‐positive rate, and the right illustrates the false‐negative rate.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Cates plot for patients. rRT‐PCR = real‐time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction.

References

    1. Lei P, Fan B, Wang P Differential diagnosis for coronavirus disease (COVID‐ 19): beyond radiologic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020;215:W19.
    1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration . Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) information, and list of all current EUAs Food and Drug Administration. 2020. Available at: . Accessed Jun 3, 2020.
    1. West CP, Montori VM, Sampathkumar P COVID‐19 testing: the threat of false‐negative results. Mayo Clin Proc 2020;95:1127–9.
    1. Lippi G, Plebani M The critical role of laboratory medicine during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) and other viral outbreaks. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;58:1063–9.
    1. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA‐ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018;169:476–3.
    1. Cheng MP, Papenburg J, Desjardins M, et al. Diagnostic testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome‐related coronavirus‐2: a narrative review. Ann Intern Med 2020;172:726–34.
    1. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ 2015;351:h5527.
    1. Simel DL, Rennie D, Bossuyt PM. The STARD statement for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: application to the history and physical examination. J Gen Intern Med 2008;23:768–74.
    1. Kohn MA, Carpenter CR, Newman TB. Understanding the direction of bias in studies of diagnostic test accuracy. Acad Emerg Med 2013;20:1194–206.
    1. Cao Y, Liu X, Xiong L, Cai K. Imaging and clinical features of patients with 2019 novel coronavirus SARS‐CoV‐2: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Med Virol 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Zhu W, Xie K, Lu H, Xu L, Zhou S, Fang S. Initial clinical features of suspected coronavirus disease 2019 in two emergency departments outside of Hubei, China. J Med Virol 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Rodriguez‐Moreles AJ, Cardona‐Ospina JA, Gutierrez‐Ocampo E, et al. Clinical, laboratory and imaging features of COVID‐19: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Travel Med Infect Dis 2020;34:101623.
    1. Peng L, Liu KY, Xue F, Miao YF, Tu PA, Zhou C. Improved early recognition of coronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19): single‐center data from a Shanghai screening hospital. Arch Iran Med 2020;23:272–6.
    1. Bwire GM, Paulo LS Paulo LS. Coronavirus disease‐2019: is fever an adequate screening for the returning travelers? Trop Med Health 2020;48:14.
    1. Benezit F, Le Turnier P, Declerck C, et al. Utility of hyposmia and hypogeusia for the diagnosis of COVID‐19. Lancet Infect Dis 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Beltrán‐Corbellini Á, Chico‐García JL, Martínez‐Poles J, et al. Acute‐onset smell and taste disorders in the context of Covid‐19: a pilot multicenter PCR‐based case‐control study. Eur J Neurol 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Heidari F, Karimi E, Firouzifar M, Khamushian P, Ansari R, Mohammadi AM. Anosmia as a prominent symptom of COVID‐19 infection. Rhinology 2020;58:302–3.
    1. Kaye R, Chang CW, Kazahaya K, Brereton J, Denneny JC 3rd. COVID‐19 anosmia reporting tool: initial findings. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2020;163:132–34.
    1. Vaira LA, Deiana G, Fois AG, et al. Objective evaluation of anosmia and ageusia in COVID‐19 patients: single‐center experience on 72 cases. Head Neck 2020;42:1252–8.
    1. Klopfenstein T, Kadiane‐Oussou NJ, Toko L, et al. Features of anosmia in COVID‐19. Med Mal Infect 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Kim GU, Kim MJ, Ra SH, et al. Clinical characteristics of asymptomatic and symptomatic patients with mild COVID‐19. Clin Microbiol Infect 2020;26:948.e1–8.e3.
    1. Lechien JR, Chiesa‐Estomba CM, Place S, et al. Clinical and epidemiological characteristics of 1,420 European patients with mild‐to‐moderate coronavirus disease 2019. J Intern Med 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Ebell MH, Afonso A A systematic review of clinical decision rules for the diagnosis of influenza. Ann Fam Med 2011;2:69–77.
    1. Call SA, Vollenweider MA, Hornung CA, Simel DL, McKinney WP. Does this patient have influenza? In: Simel DL, Rennie D, editors. The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence‐Based Clinical Diagnosis. New York: McGraw‐Hill, 2009. pp. 343–54.
    1. Villalba NL, Maouche Y, Ortiz MB, et al. Anosmia and dysgeusia in the absence of other respiratory diseases: should COVID‐19 infection be considered? Eur J Case Rep Intern Med 2020;7:001–641.
    1. Roland LT, Gurrola JG 2nd, Loftus PA, Cheung SW, Chang JL. Smell and taste symptom‐based predictive model for COVID‐19 diagnosis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Amalou A, Turkbey B, Sanford T, et al. Targeted early chest CT in COVID‐19 outbreaks as diagnostic tool for containment of the pandemic ‐ A multinational opinion. Diagn Interv Radiol 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Ferrari D, Motta A, Strollo M, Banfi G, Locatelli M. Routine blood tests as a potential diagnostic tool for COVID‐19. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;58:1095–9.
    1. Yang AP, Liu JP, Tao WQ, Li HM. The diagnostic and predictive role of NLR, d‐NLR and PLR in COVID‐19 patients. Int Immunopharmacol 2020;84 [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Mardani R, Ahmadi Vasmehjani A, Zali F, et al. Laboratory parameters in detection of COVID‐19 patients with positive RT‐PCR; a diagnostic accuracy study. Arch Acad Emerg Med 2020;8:e43.
    1. Wang F, Hou H, Luo Y, et al. The laboratory tests and host immunity of COVID‐19 patients with different severity of illness. JCI Insight 2020;5:e137799.
    1. Gao Y, Li T, Han M, et al. Diagnostic utility of clinical laboratory data determinations for patients with the severe COVID‐19. J Med Virol 2020;92:791–6.
    1. Li Y, Hu Y, Yu J, Ma T. Retrospective analysis of laboratory testing in 54 patients with severe‐ or critical‐type 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia. Lab Invest 2020;100:794–800.
    1. Beeching NJ, Fletcher TE. Beadsworth MB. Covid‐19: testing times. BMJ 2020;369:m1403.
    1. Pathak M, Patel SK, Jigyasa R, et al. Global threat of SARS‐CoV‐2/COVID‐19 and the need for more and better diagnostic tools. Arch Med Res 2020;51:450–2.
    1. Yelin I, Aharony N, Shaer Tamar E, et al. Evaluation of COVID‐19 RT‐qPCR test in multi‐sample pools. Clin Infect Dis 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Abdalhamid B, Bilder CR, McCutchen EL, Hinrichs SH, Koepsell SA, Iwen PC. Assessment of specimen pooling to conserve SARS CoV‐2 testing resources. Am J Clin Pathol 2020;153:715–8.
    1. Uhteg K, Jarrett J, Richards M, et al. Comparing the analytical performance of three SARS‐CoV‐2 molecular diagnostic assays. J Clin Virol 2020;127:104384.
    1. Zhen W, Manji R, Smith E, Berry GJ. Comparison of four molecular in vitro diagnostic assays for the detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 in nasopharyngeal specimens. J Clin Microbiol 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Zhen W, Smith E, Manji R, Schron D, Berry GJ. Clinical evaluation of three sample‐to‐answer platforms for the detection of SARS‐CoV‐2. J Clin Microbiol 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Pang J, Wang MX, Ang IY, et al. Potential rapid diagnostics, vaccine and therapeutics for 2019 novel coronavirus (2019‐nCoV): a systematic review. J Clin Med 2020;9:623.
    1. Rahman H, Carter I, Basile K, et al. Interpret with caution: an evaluation of the commercial AusDiagnostics versus in‐house developed assays for the detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 virus. J Clin Virol 2020;127:104374.
    1. Lv DF, Ying QM, Weng YS, et al. Dynamic change process of target genes by RT‐PCR testing of SARS‐Cov‐2 during the course of a coronavirus disease 2019 patient. Clin Chim Acta 2020;506:172–5.
    1. Xiao AT, Tong YX, Zhang S False‐negative of RT‐PCR and prolonged nucleic acid conversion in COVID‐19: rather than recurrence. J Med Virol 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Yuan J, Kou S, Liang Y, Zeng J, Pan Y, Liu L. PCR Assays turned positive in 25 discharged COVID‐19 patients. Clin Infect Dis 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Ren X, Liu Y, Chen H, et al. Application and optimization of RT‐PCR in diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. medRxiv 2020. [preprint].
    1. Raschke RA, Curry SC, Glenn T, Gutierrez F, Iyengar S. A Bayesian analysis of strategies to rule out COVID19 using reverse transcriptase‐polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR). Arch Pathol Lab Med 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Zhang JJ, Cao YY, Dong X, et al. Distinct characteristics of COVID‐19 patients with initial rRT‐PCR positive and negative results for SARS‐CoV‐2. Allergy 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Tahamtan A, Ardebili A. Real‐time RT‐PCR in COVID‐19 detection: issues affecting the results. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2020;20:453–4.
    1. Wang X, Yao H, Xu X, et al. Limits of detection of six approved RT‐PCR kits for the novel SARS‐coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2). Clin Chem 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Wang Y, Kang H, Liu X, Tong Z. Combination of RT‐qPCR testing and clinical features for diagnosis of COVID‐19 facilitates management of SARS‐CoV‐2 outbreak. J Med Virol 2020;92:538–9.
    1. Rhoads DD, Cherian SS, Roman K, Stempak LM, Schmotzer CL, Sadri N. Comparison of Abbott ID Now, Diasorin Simplexa, and CDC FDA EUA methods for the detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 from nasopharyngeal and nasal swabs from individuals diagnosed with COVID‐19. J Clin Microbiol. 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Nalla AK, Casto AM, Huang ML, et al. Comparative performance of SARS‐CoV‐2 detection assays using seven different primer/probe sets and one assay kit. J Clin Microbiol 2020;58:e00557–e620.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . CDC 2019‐Novel Coronavirus (2019‐nCoV) Real‐Time RT‐PCR Diagnostic Panel. 2020. Available at: . Accessed May 9, 2020
    1. Ye G, Li Y, Lu M, et al. Experience of different upper respiratory tract sampling strategies for detection of COVID‐19. J Hosp Infect 2020;105:1–2.
    1. Wang X, Tan L, Wang X, et al. Comparison of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for SARS‐CoV‐2 detection in 353 patients received tests with both specimens simultaneously. Int J Infect Dis 2020;94:107–9.
    1. Santosh KC. AI‐driven tools for coronavirus outbreak: need of active learning and cross‐population train/test models on multitudinal/multimodal data. J Med Syst 2020;44.
    1. Sullivan PS, Sailey C, Guest JL, et al. Detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA and antibodies in diverse samples: protocol to validate the sufficiency of provider‐observed home‐collected blood, saliva and oropharyngeal samples. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020;6:e19054.
    1. Azzi L, Carcano G, Gianfagna F, et al. Saliva is a reliable tool to detect SARS‐CoV‐2. J Infect 2020;81:e45–50.
    1. Lin C, Xiang J, Yan M, Li H, Huang S, Shen C. Comparison of throat swabs and sputum specimens for viral nucleic acid detection in 52 cases of novel coronavirus (SARS‐Cov‐2)‐infected pneumonia (COVID‐19). Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;58:1089–94.
    1. Pan Y, Zhang D, Yang P, Poon LL, Wang Q. Viral load of SARS‐CoV‐2 in clinical samples. Lancet Infect Dis 2020;20:411–2.
    1. Yu F, Yan L, Wang N, et al. Quantitative detection and viral load analysis of SARS‐CoV‐2 in infected patients. Clin Infect Dis 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Ghosal S, Sinha B. Rapid sputum testing and not thermal screening alone should be the first‐line screening test at airports: a Bayesian analysis. Diabetes Metab Syndr 2020;14:317–8.
    1. Gallagher EJ. Emergency medicine/editorial. The problem with sensitivity and specificity. Ann Emerg Med 2003;42:298–303.
    1. Hayden SR, Brown MD. Likelihood ratio: A powerful tool for incorporating the results of a diagnostic test into clinical decisionmaking. Annals of Emergency Medicine 1999; 33:575–80.
    1. Xie C, Jiang L, Huang G, et al. Comparison of different samples for 2019 novel coronavirus detection by nucleic acid amplification tests. Int J Infect Dis 2020; 93:264–7.
    1. Baek YH, Um J, Antigua KJ, et al. Development of a reverse transcription‐loop‐mediated isothermal amplification as a rapid early‐detection method for novel SARS‐CoV‐2. Emerg Microbes Infect 2020;9:998–1007.
    1. Huang WE, Lim B, Hsu CC, et al. RT‐LAMP for rapid diagnosis of coronavirus SARS‐CoV‐2. Microb Biotechnol 2020;13:950–61.
    1. Park GS, Ku K, Baek SH, et al. Development of reverse transcription loop‐mediated isothermal amplification assays targeting severe acute respiratory syndrom coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2). J Mol Diagn 2020;22:729–35.
    1. Guan WD, Chen LP, Ye F, et al. High‐throughput sequencing for confirmation of suspected 2019‐nCoV infection identified by fluorescence quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Chin Med J 2020;133:1385–6.
    1. Hinton DM. Letter to Quidel Corporation. Food and Drug Administration. 2020. Available at: . Accessed May 11, 2020
    1. Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers . Quidel Corporation. 2020. Available at: . Accessed May 11, 2020
    1. Hahn SM, Shuren JE.FDA Statement: Coronavirus (COVID‐19) Update: FDA Authorizes First Antigen Test to Help in the Rapid Detection of the Virus that Causes COVID‐19 in Patients. 2020. Available at: . Accessed June 2, 2020
    1. Guneyli S, Atceken Z, Dogan H, Altinmakas E, Atasoy KC. Radiological approach to COVID‐19 pneumonia with an emphasis on chest CT. Diagn Interv Radiol 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Chen SG, Chen JY, Yang YP, Chien CS, Wang ML, Lin LT. Use of radiographic features in COVID‐19 diagnosis: challenges and perspectives. J Chin Med Assoc 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Wong HY, Lam HY, Fong AT, et al. Frequency and distribution of chest radiographic findings in COVID‐19 positive patients. Radiology 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Guan CS, Lv ZB, Yan S, et al. Imaging features of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19): evaluation on thin‐section CT. Acad Radiol 2020;27:609–13.
    1. Kim ES, Chin BS, Kang CK, et al. Clinical course and outcomes of patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection: a preliminary report of the first 28 patients from the Korean Cohort Study on COVID‐19. J Korean Med Sci 2020;35:e142.
    1. Ng MY, Lee EY, Yang F, et al. Imaging profile of the COVID‐19 infection: radiologic findings and literature review. Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging 2020;2:e200034.
    1. Chen N, Zhou M, Dong X, et al. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study. Lancet 2020;395:507–13.
    1. Himoto Y, Sakata A, Kirita M, et al. Diagnostic performance of chest CT to differentiate COVID‐19 pneumonia in non‐high‐epidemic area in Japan. Jpn J Radiol 2020;38:400–6.
    1. Raptis CA, Hammer MM, Short RG, et al. Chest CT and coronavirus disease (COVID‐19): a critical review of the literature to date. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020;1–4 [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Khazaei M, Asgari R, Zarei E, Moharramzad Y, Haghighatkhah H, Sanei TM. Incidentally diagnosed COVID‐19 Infection in trauma patients; a clinical experience. Arch Acad Emerg Med 2020;8:e31.
    1. Hao W, Li M. Clinical features of atypical 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia with an initially negative RT‐PCR assay. J Infect 2020;80:671–93.
    1. Huang P, Liu T, Huang L, et al. Use of chest CT in combination with negative RT‐PCR assay for the 2019 novel coronavirus but high clinical suspicion. Radiology 2020;295:22–3.
    1. Xie X, Zhong Z, Zhao W, Zheng C, Wang F, Liu J. Chest CT for typical 2019‐nCoV pneumonia: relationship to negative RT‐PCR testing. Radiology 2020;200343 [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Xu J, Wu R, Huang H, et al. Computed tomographic imaging of 3 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia with negative virus real‐time reverse‐transcription polymerase chain reaction test. Clin Infect Dis 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Shi H, Han X, Cao Y, Alwalid O, Zheng C. CT screening for early diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection ‐ authors' reply. Lancet Infect Dis 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Chen X, Tang Y, Mo Y, et al. A diagnostic model for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) based on radiological semantic and clinical features: a multi‐center study. Eur Radiol 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Feng H, Liu Y, Lv M, Zhong J. A case report of COVID‐19 with false negative RT‐PCR test: necessity of chest CT. Jpn J Radiol 2020;38:409–10.
    1. Al‐Tawfiq JA, Memish ZA. Diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 Infection based on CT scan vs. RT‐PCR: reflecting on experience from MERS‐CoV. J Hosp Infect 2020;105:154–5.
    1. Majidi H, Niksolat F. Chest CT in patients suspected of COVID‐19 infection: a reliable alternative for RT‐PCR. Am J Emerg Med 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Huang Y, Cheng W, Zhao N, Qu H, Tian J. CT screening for early diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Lancet Infect Dis 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Bai HX, Hsieh B, Xiong Z, et al. Performance of radiologists in differentiating COVID‐19 from viral pneumonia on chest CT. Radiology 2020;200823 [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Bai HX, Wang R, Xiong Z, et al. AI augmentation of radiologist performance in distinguishing COVID‐19 from pneumonia of other etiology on chest CT. Radiology 2020;201491 [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Laghi A. Cautions about radiologic diagnosis of COVID‐19 infection driven by artificial intelligence. Lancet Digital Health 2020;2:e225.
    1. Fang Y, Zhang H, Xie J, et al. Sensitivity of chest CT for COVID‐19: comparison to RT‐PCR. Radiology 2020;200432 [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Long C, Xu H, Shen Q, et al. Diagnosis of the coronavirus disease (COVID‐19): rRT‐PCR or CT? Eur J Radiol 2020;126:108961.
    1. Nair A, Rodrigues JC, Hare S, et al. A British Society of Thoracic Imaging statement: considerations in designing local imaging diagnostic algorithms for the COVID‐19 pandemic. Clin Radiol 2020;75:329–34.
    1. Tavare AN, Braddy A, Brill S, et al. Managing high clinical suspicion COVID‐19 inpatients with negative RT‐PCR: a pragmatic and limited role for thoracic CT. Thorax 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Whitman JD, Hiatt J, Mowery CT, et al. Test performance evaluation of SARS‐CoV‐2 serological assays. medRxiv 2020. [preprint].
    1. Bendavid E, Mulaney B, Sood N, et al. COVID‐19 antibody seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California. medRxIV 2020. [preprint].
    1. Abbasi J. The promise and perils of antibody testing for COVID‐19. JAMA 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. World Health Organization . “Immunity passports" in the Context of COVID‐19. World Health Organization. 2020. Available at: . Accessed May 6, 2020
    1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration . Policy for Coronavirus Disease‐2019 Tests During the Public Health Emergency (Revised). 2020. Available at: . Accessed May 7, 2020.
    1. Rong XM, Yang L, Chu HD, Fan M. Effect of delay in diagnosis on transmission of COVID‐19. Math Biosci Eng 2020;17:2725–40.
    1. Koenig KL, Beÿ CK, McDonald EC. 2019‐nCoV: the identify‐isolate‐inform (3I) tool applied to a novel emerging coronavirus. West J Emerg Med 2020;21:184–90.
    1. Orsi MA, Oliva AG, Cellina M. Radiology department preparedness for COVID‐19: facing an unexpected outbreak of the disease. Radiology 2020;295:E8.
    1. Chen H, Ai L, Lu H, Li H. Clinical and imaging features of COVID‐19. Radiol Infect Dis 2020. [in press].
    1. Rubin GD, Ryerson CJ, Haramati LB, et al. The role of chest imaging in patient management during the COVID‐19 pandemic: a multinational consensus statement from the Fleischner Society. Chest 2020;296:172–80.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . FACT SHEET FOR HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS CDC ‐ 2019‐nCoV Real‐Time RT‐PCR Diagnostic Centers for Disease Control. 2020. Available at: . Accessed May 6, 2020
    1. Karch A, Koch A, Zapf A, Zerr I, Karch A. Partial verification bias and incorporation bias affected accuracy estimates of diagnostic studies for biomarkers that were part of an existing composite gold standard. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;78:73–82.
    1. Lei P, Fan B, Mao J, Wang P. Multiple parameters required for diagnosis of COVID‐19 in clinical practice. J Infect 2020;80:e27–e28.
    1. Glasziou P, Irwig L, Deeks JJ. When should a new test become the current reference standard? Ann Intern Med 2008;149:816–21.
    1. Carpenter CR. Understanding bias in diagnostic research. In: Pines JM, Carpenter CR, Raja AS, Schuur JD, editors. Evidence‐Based Emergency Care: Diagnostic Testing and Clinical Decision Rules. 2nd ed. London: John Wiley & Sons, 2013. pp. 54–64.
    1. Xiao AT, Tong YX, Zhang S. Profile of RT‐PCR for SARS‐CoV‐2: a preliminary study from 56 COVID‐19 patients. Clin Infect Dis 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. To KK, Tsang OT, Leung WS, et al. Temporal profiles of viral load in posterior oropharyngeal saliva samples and serum antibody responses during infection by SARS‐CoV‐2: an observational cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis 2020;20:565–74.
    1. Leeflang MM, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Hooft L, Bossuyt PM. Variation of a test's sensitivity and specificity with disease prevalence. CMAJ 2013;185:E537–E544.
    1. Inui S, Fujikawa A, Jitsu M, et al. Chest CT findings in cases from the cruise ship “Diamond Princess” with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging 2020;2:e200110.
    1. Gallo L, Hua N, Mercuri M, Silveira A, Worster A. Adherence to standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy in emergency medicine research. Acad Emerg Med 2017;24:914–9.
    1. Carpenter CR, Meizel Z. Overcoming the Tower of Babel in medical science by finding the "EQUATOR": research reporting guidelines. Acad Emerg Med 2017;24:1030–3.
    1. Hunter BR, Carpenter CR. The development of clinical prediction rules. In: Wilson MP, Guluma K, Hayden SR, editors. Doing Research in Emergency and Acute Care: Making Order Out of Chaos. Oxford: Wiley‐Blackwell, 2016. pp. 139–47.
    1. Kline JA, Courtney DM, Kabrhel C, et al. Prospective multicenter evaluation of the pulmonary embolism rule‐out criteria. J Thromb Haemost 2008;6:772–80.
    1. Wynants L, Van Calster B, Bonten MM, et al. Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid‐19 infection: systematic review and critical appraisal. BMJ 2020;369:m1328.
    1. Ji D, Zhang D, Xu J, et al. Prediction for progression risk in patients with COVID‐19 pneumonia: the CALL score. Clin Infect Dis 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Gong J, Ou J, Qiu X, et al. A tool to early predict severe corona virus disease 2019 (COVID‐19): a multicenter study using the risk nomogram in Wuhan and Guangdong, China. Clin Infect Dis 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Hu H, Yao N, Qiu Y. Comparing rapid scoring systems in mortality prediction of critically ill patients with novel coronavirus disease. Acad Emerg Med 2020;27:461–8.
    1. Brown MD, Reeves MJ. Interval likelihood ratios: Another advantage for the evidence‐based diagnostician. Annals of Emergency Medicine 2003; 42:292–7.
    1. Desai AN, Aronoff DM. Masks and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). JAMA 2020;323:2103.
    1. Desai AN, Patel P. Stopping the spread of COVID‐19. JAMA 2020;323:1516.
    1. Sepucha KR, Breslin M, Graffeo C, Carpenter CR, Hess EP. State of the science: tools and measurement for shared decision making. Acad Emerg Med 2016;23:1325–31.
    1. Pascarella G, Strumia A, Piliego C, et al. COVID‐19 diagnosis and management: a comprehensive review. J Intern Med. 2020. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Marcotte LM, Liao JM. Incorporating Test Characteristics Into SARS‐CoV‐2 Testing Policy—Sense and Sensitivity. JAMA Health Forum Web site. 2020. Available at: . Accessed Jun 2, 2020
    1. Bachelet VC. Do we know the diagnostic properties of the tests used in COVID‐19? A rapid review of recently published literature. Medwave 2020;20:e7890.
    1. Elshafeey F, Magdi R, Hindi N, et al. A systematic scoping review of COVID‐19 during pregnancy and childbirth. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2020;150:47–52.
    1. Malone ML, Hogan TM, Perry A, et al.COVID‐19 in Older Adults: Key Points for Emergency Department Providers. Geriatric Emergency Department Collaborative. Journal of Geriatric Emergency Medicine Web Site. 2020. Available at: . Accessed May 9, 2020
    1. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood MD, et al. QUADAS‐2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529–36.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere