Why the study?
Typical chest CT findings of COVID-19 can resemble other diseases, leading to false-positive results especially when community prevalence is low, making imaging differentiation essential for management, isolation, and patient disposition.
Careful analysis of chest CT features and consideration of community prevalence are essential to differentiate COVID-19 pneumonia from other causes of ground-glass opacities.
CT interpretation for suspected COVID-19 must integrate pre-test probability; leaves open standardized criteria for differentiation across prevalence settings.
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a recently emerged lower respiratory tract illness, has quickly become a pandemic. The purpose of this review is to discuss and differentiate typical imaging findings of COVID-19 from those of other diseases, which can appear similar in the first instance. The typical CT findings of COVID-19 are bilateral and peripheral predominant ground-glass opacities. As per the Fleischner Society consensus statement, CT is appropriate in certain scenarios, including for patients who are at risk for and/or develop clinical worsening. The probability that CT findings represent COVID-19, however, depends largely on the pretest probability of infection, which is in turn defined by community prevalence of infection. When the community prevalence of COVID-19 is low, a large gap exists between positive predictive values of chest CT versus those of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. This implies that with use of chest CT there are a large number of false-positive results. Imaging differentiation is important for management and isolation purposes and for appropriate disposition of patients with false-positive CT findings. Herein the authors discuss differential pathology with close imaging resemblance to typical CT imaging features of COVID-19 and highlight CT features that may help differentiate COVID-19 from other conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Parekh et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: