Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1259/bjr.20200643 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1259/bjr.20200643 32808545!7465869!32808545     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 243.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 243.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Br+J+Radiol 2020 ; 93 (1113): 20200643 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=32808545|t=2020. Diagnostic performance of chest CT in screening patients with suspected COVID-19 infection in a Western population |pdf=|usr=}}{{32808545}} gab.com Text Diagnostic performance of chest CT in screening patients with suspected COVID-19 infection in a Western population JO: Br J Radiol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32808545 #FOAvip OBJECTIVE: To investigate the diagnostic performance of chest CT in screening patients suspected of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a Western population. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent chest CT because of clinical suspicion of COVID-19 were included. CT scans were prospectively evaluated by frontline general radiologists who were on duty at the time when the CT scan was performed and retrospectively assessed by a chest radiologist in an independent and blinded manner. Real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction was used as reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. Sensitivity and specificity of the frontline general radiologists were compared to those of the chest radiologist using the McNemar test. RESULTS: 56 patients were included. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for the frontline general radiologists were 89.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 71.8%, 97.7%], 32.1% (95% CI: 15.9%, 52.4%), 56.8% (95% CI: 41.0%, 71.7%), and 75.0% (95% CI: 42.8%, 94.5%), respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for the chest radiologist were 89.3% (95% CI: 71.8%, 97.7%), 75.0% (95% CI: 55.1%, 89.3%), 78.1% (95% CI: 60.0%, 90.7%), and 87.5% (95% CI: 67.6%, 97.3%), respectively. Sensitivity was not significantly different (p = 1.000), but specificity was significantly higher for the chest radiologist (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Chest CT interpreted by frontline general radiologists achieves insufficient screening performance. Although specificity of a chest radiologist appears to be significantly higher, sensitivity did not improve. A negative chest CT result does not exclude COVID-19. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Our study shows that chest CT interpreted by frontline general radiologists achieves insufficient diagnostic performance to use it as an independent screening tool for COVID-19. Although specificity of a chest radiologist appears to be significantly higher, sensitivity is still insufficiently high. Twit Text FOAVip Diagnostic performance of chest CT in screening patients with suspected COVID-19 infection in a Western population ????Br J Radiol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32808545 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32808545 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|32808545}}</ref> Diagnostic performance of chest CT in screening patients with suspected COVID-19 infection in a Western population #MMPMID32808545 Krdzalic J; de Jaegere TMH; Kwee RM Br J Radiol 2020[Sep]; 93 (1113): 20200643 PMID32808545show ga OBJECTIVE: To investigate the diagnostic performance of chest CT in screening patients suspected of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a Western population. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent chest CT because of clinical suspicion of COVID-19 were included. CT scans were prospectively evaluated by frontline general radiologists who were on duty at the time when the CT scan was performed and retrospectively assessed by a chest radiologist in an independent and blinded manner. Real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction was used as reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. Sensitivity and specificity of the frontline general radiologists were compared to those of the chest radiologist using the McNemar test. RESULTS: 56 patients were included. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for the frontline general radiologists were 89.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 71.8%, 97.7%], 32.1% (95% CI: 15.9%, 52.4%), 56.8% (95% CI: 41.0%, 71.7%), and 75.0% (95% CI: 42.8%, 94.5%), respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for the chest radiologist were 89.3% (95% CI: 71.8%, 97.7%), 75.0% (95% CI: 55.1%, 89.3%), 78.1% (95% CI: 60.0%, 90.7%), and 87.5% (95% CI: 67.6%, 97.3%), respectively. Sensitivity was not significantly different (p = 1.000), but specificity was significantly higher for the chest radiologist (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Chest CT interpreted by frontline general radiologists achieves insufficient screening performance. Although specificity of a chest radiologist appears to be significantly higher, sensitivity did not improve. A negative chest CT result does not exclude COVID-19. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Our study shows that chest CT interpreted by frontline general radiologists achieves insufficient diagnostic performance to use it as an independent screening tool for COVID-19. Although specificity of a chest radiologist appears to be significantly higher, sensitivity is still insufficiently high. |*Betacoronavirus[MESH] |Adult[MESH] |Aged[MESH] |Aged, 80 and over[MESH] |COVID-19[MESH] |Coronavirus Infections/*diagnostic imaging[MESH] |Female[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Lung/diagnostic imaging[MESH] |Male[MESH] |Middle Aged[MESH] |Pandemics[MESH] |Pneumonia, Viral/*diagnostic imaging[MESH] |Prospective Studies[MESH] |Radiography, Thoracic/methods[MESH] |Reproducibility of Results[MESH] |Retrospective Studies[MESH] |SARS-CoV-2[MESH] |Sensitivity and Specificity[MESH]Diagnostic performance of chest CT in screening patients with suspecte(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing