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.

10.1177/20542704211011837 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1177/20542704211011837 34035931!8127597!34035931     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 229.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 229.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 229.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 229.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 229.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 229.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 263.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       JRSM+Open 2021 ; 12 (5): 20542704211011837 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=34035931|t=2021. Chest CT versus RT-PCR for the detection of COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies |pdf=|usr=}}{{34035931}} gab.com Text Chest CT versus RT-PCR for the detection of COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies JO: JRSM Open http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=34035931 #FOAvip OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of chest computed tomography (CT) scan versus reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as the reference standard in the initial diagnostic assessment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. A search of electronic information was conducted using the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. SETTING: Studies that compared the diagnostic performance within the same patient cohort of chest CT scan versus RT-PCR in COVID-19 suspected patients. PARTICIPANTS: Thirteen non-randomised studies enrolling 4092 patients were identified. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were primary outcome measures. Secondary outcomes included other test performance characteristics and discrepant findings between both investigations. RESULTS: Chest CT had a median sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 0.91 (range 0.82-0.98), 0.775 (0.25-1.00) and 0.87 (0.68-0.99), respectively, with RT-PCR as the reference. Importantly, early small, China-based studies tended to favour chest CT versus later larger, non-China studies. CONCLUSIONS: A relatively high false positive rate can be expected with chest CT. It is possible it may still be useful to provide circumstantial evidence, however, in some patients with a suspicious clinical presentation of COVID-19 and negative initial Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 RT-PCR tests, but more evidence is required in this context. In acute cardiorespiratory presentations, negative CT scan and RT-PCR tests is likely to be reassuring. Twit Text FOAVip Chest CT versus RT-PCR for the detection of COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies ????JRSM Open http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=34035931 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=34035931 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|34035931}}</ref> Chest CT versus RT-PCR for the detection of COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies #MMPMID34035931 Karam M; Althuwaikh S; Alazemi M; Abul A; Hayre A; Alsaif A; Barlow G JRSM Open 2021[May]; 12 (5): 20542704211011837 PMID34035931show ga OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of chest computed tomography (CT) scan versus reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as the reference standard in the initial diagnostic assessment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. A search of electronic information was conducted using the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. SETTING: Studies that compared the diagnostic performance within the same patient cohort of chest CT scan versus RT-PCR in COVID-19 suspected patients. PARTICIPANTS: Thirteen non-randomised studies enrolling 4092 patients were identified. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were primary outcome measures. Secondary outcomes included other test performance characteristics and discrepant findings between both investigations. RESULTS: Chest CT had a median sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 0.91 (range 0.82-0.98), 0.775 (0.25-1.00) and 0.87 (0.68-0.99), respectively, with RT-PCR as the reference. Importantly, early small, China-based studies tended to favour chest CT versus later larger, non-China studies. CONCLUSIONS: A relatively high false positive rate can be expected with chest CT. It is possible it may still be useful to provide circumstantial evidence, however, in some patients with a suspicious clinical presentation of COVID-19 and negative initial Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 RT-PCR tests, but more evidence is required in this context. In acute cardiorespiratory presentations, negative CT scan and RT-PCR tests is likely to be reassuring. äChest CT versus RT-PCR for the detection of COVID-19: systematic revie(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing