Radiological follow-up of adults hospitalised with pneumonia and SARS-CoV-2 infection, in Bristol UK, during the COVID19 pandemic

  1. Gabriella Ruffino
  2. Rachel L Williams
  3. Shaney Barratt
  4. Catherine Hyams

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Introduction

Radiological change which may be attributed to infection can also be attributable to lung cancer. Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection can develop groundglass lung opacification which may result in chronic lung changes. Current British Thoracic Society (BTS) guidelines recommend patients with pneumonia and COVID19 undergo repeat chest radiography.

Methods

A single-centre audit of patients hospitalised with community-acquired pneumonia or COVID19 over three time periods during the COVID19 pandemic (Aug-Dec 2020, Jun-Aug 2021, Dec-Jan 2022). We assessed whether patients were eligible for radiological follow-up and if repeat radiological investigation occurred.

Results

1040 adults were hospitalised with infective radiological change (pneumonia=596, COVID19=444). 831/1040 patients (80%) required radiological follow-up under BTS guideline criteria: there was minimal difference between the first two time periods studied. Patients hospitalised with CAP were less likely to have radiological follow-up planned than those admitted with COVID19 disease (49% versus 59% respectively). Following a change in hospital policy, follow-up rates increased to 69% and 71% for pneumonia and COVID19. Overall, only 47% eligible patients received follow-up in line with current guidelines.

Conclusion

BTS guideline adherence is important to avoid delay in diagnosing underlying malignancy or chronic lung disease. Radiological follow-up following CAP and COVID19 may be suboptimal, with a paucity of data. Follow-up arranged under the hospital team was more likely to occur than when the GP was responsible for instigating repeat radiological imaging. Further investigation into rates of radiological follow-up should be undertaken, including reasons for non-adherence, to ensure patients receive appropriate treatment following respiratory infection.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1101/2022.01.04.22268738v2 on medRxiv
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.04.22268738: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    There are some limitations, and this is a single-centre audit so results may not be generalisable. By necessity we audited time periods when the NHS was under considerable pressure, and therefore rates of appropriate follow-up may improve when services are not under such strain. These data suggest BTS guideline adherence regarding radiological follow-up may be suboptimal, with room for improvement and consequently improved patient outcomes. This audit should be undertaken at additional hospitals, and potentially nationally, to ensure appropriate BTS guidelines adherence thereby avoiding delay in diagnosing underlying malignancy or chronic lung disease.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.01.04.22268738v1 on medRxiv