CT in relation to RT-PCR in diagnosing COVID-19 in The Netherlands: A prospective study

  1. Hester A. Gietema
  2. Noortje Zelis
  3. J. Martijn Nobel
  4. Lars J. G. Lambriks
  5. Lieke B. van Alphen
  6. Astrid M. L. Oude Lashof
  7. Joachim E. Wildberger
  8. Irene C. Nelissen
  9. Patricia M. Stassen

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1371/journal.pone.0235844
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.22.20070441: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: The study was approved by the medical ethics committee of MUMC+ (METC 2020-1564) and informed consent was waived.
    Consent: The study was approved by the medical ethics committee of MUMC+ (METC 2020-1564) and informed consent was waived.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot 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:
    Our study has some limitations. External validity may be limited in this study due to its single centre set-up. In addition, especially in patients with mild symptoms who were not admitted to the hospital, no second PCR-testing was done after an initial negative result. A third limitation is that in the 5 patients who were intubated directly upon arrival at the ED, no CT scan was made. However, many patients who were seriously ill were included in the study, as demonstrated by the high proportion of patients being septic. In conclusion, the diagnostic accuracy of chest CT in symptomatic ED patients is good, but not good enough to safely diagnose or exclude COVID-19, especially when patients are placed in cohorts. However, CT can be used as a quick first screening tool.

    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.

    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 10.1101/2020.04.22.20070441v1 on medRxiv