The accuracy of teleradiologists in diagnosing COVID-19 based on a French multicentric emergency cohort.
COVID-19
Emergency service
Hospital
Polymerase chain reaction
Teleradiology
Tomography, X-ray computed
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2021
May 2021
Historique:
received:
03
07
2020
accepted:
23
09
2020
revised:
03
09
2020
pubmed:
31
10
2020
medline:
16
4
2021
entrez:
30
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the accuracy of diagnoses of COVID-19 based on chest CT as well as inter-observer agreement between teleradiologists during on-call duty and senior radiologists in suspected COVID-19 patients. From March 13, 2020, to April 14, 2020, consecutive suspected COVID-19 adult patients who underwent both an RT-PCR test and chest CT from 15 hospitals were included in this prospective study. Chest CTs were immediately interpreted by the on-call teleradiologist and were systematically blind reviewed by a senior radiologist. Readings were categorised using a five-point scale: (1) normal; (2) non-infectious findings; (3) infectious findings but not consistent with COVID-19 infection; (4) consistent with COVID-19 infection; and (5) typical appearance of COVID-19 infection. The diagnostic accuracy of chest CT and inter-observer agreement using the kappa coefficient were evaluated over the study period. In total, 513 patients were enrolled, of whom 244/513 (47.6%) tested positive for RT-PCR. First readings were scored 4 or 5 in 225/244 (92%) RT-PCR+ patients, and between 1 and 3 in 201/269 (74.7%) RT-PCR- patients. The data were highly consistent (weighted kappa = 0.87) and correlated with RT-PCR (p < 0.001, AUC Chest CT demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy with strong inter-observer agreement between on-call teleradiologists with varying degrees of experience and senior radiologists over the study period. • The accuracy of readings by on-call teleradiologists, relative to second readings by senior radiologists, demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.75-0.79, specificity of 0.92-0.97, NPV of 0.80-0.83, and PPV of 0.89-0.96, based on "typical appearance," as predictive of RT-PCR+. • Inter-observer agreement between the first reading in the emergency setting and the second reading by the senior emergency teleradiologist was excellent (weighted kappa = 0.87).
Identifiants
pubmed: 33123790
doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-07345-z
pii: 10.1007/s00330-020-07345-z
pmc: PMC7594948
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2833-2844Références
Clin Radiol. 2020 May;75(5):329-334
pubmed: 32265036
Eur Radiol. 2019 Apr;29(4):1647-1648
pubmed: 30762110
Radiology. 2020 Aug;296(2):E46-E54
pubmed: 32155105
Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging. 2020 Mar 25;2(2):e200152
pubmed: 33778571
Radiology. 2020 Jun;295(3):200463
pubmed: 32077789
Radiology. 2020 Aug;296(2):E97-E104
pubmed: 32339082
Eur Respir J. 2020 Apr 30;55(4):
pubmed: 32217649
Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):497-506
pubmed: 31986264
Radiology. 2020 Aug;296(2):E32-E40
pubmed: 32101510
Radiology. 2020 Aug;296(2):E115-E117
pubmed: 32073353
JAMA. 2020 May 12;323(18):1843-1844
pubmed: 32159775
Radiology. 2020 Aug;296(2):E113-E114
pubmed: 32105562
Radiology. 2018 Nov;289(2):374-383
pubmed: 30084754
N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 20;382(8):727-733
pubmed: 31978945
Eur Radiol. 2019 Apr;29(4):1649-1654
pubmed: 30542751
Insights Imaging. 2016 Aug;7(4):463-79
pubmed: 27188379