scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of X-ray versus CT in COVID-19: a propensity-matched database study

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e042946
Author(s):  
Aditya Borakati ◽  
Adrian Perera ◽  
James Johnson ◽  
Tara Sood
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Vital Signs ◽  
Health Science ◽  
British Society ◽  
Initial Assessment ◽  
Imaging Features ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Thoracic Imaging ◽  
X Ray

ObjectivesTo identify the diagnostic accuracy of common imaging modalities, chest X-ray (CXR) and CT, for diagnosis of COVID-19 in the general emergency population in the UK and to find the association between imaging features and outcomes in these patients.DesignRetrospective analysis of electronic patient records.SettingTertiary academic health science centre and designated centre for high consequence infectious diseases in London, UK.Participants1198 patients who attended the emergency department with paired reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) swabs for SARS-CoV-2 and CXR between 16 March and 16 April 2020.Main outcome measuresSensitivity and specificity of CXR and CT for diagnosis of COVID-19 using the British Society of Thoracic Imaging reporting templates. Reference standard was any RT-PCR positive naso-oropharyngeal swab within 30 days of attendance. ORs of CXR in association with vital signs, laboratory values and 30-day outcomes were calculated.ResultsSensitivity and specificity of CXR for COVID-19 diagnosis were 0.56 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.60) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.65), respectively. For CT scans, these were 0.85 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.90) and 0.50 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.60), respectively. This gave a statistically significant mean increase in sensitivity with CT of 29% (95% CI 19% to 38%, p<0.0001) compared with CXR. Specificity was not significantly different between the two modalities.CXR findings were not statistically significantly or clinically meaningfully associated with vital signs, laboratory parameters or 30-day outcomes.ConclusionsCT has substantially improved diagnostic performance over CXR in COVID-19. CT should be strongly considered in the initial assessment for suspected COVID-19. This gives potential for increased sensitivity and considerably faster turnaround time, where capacity allows and balanced against excess radiation exposure risk.

scholarly journals Chest X-Ray Has Poor Diagnostic Accuracy and Prognostic Significance in COVID-19: A Propensity Matched Database Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aditya Borakati ◽  
Adrian Perera ◽  
James Johnson ◽  
Tara Sood
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Vital Signs ◽  
Health Science ◽  
British Society ◽  
Imaging Features ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Chest X Ray

Objectives: To identify the diagnostic accuracy of common imaging modalities, chest X-ray (CXR) and computed tomography (CT) for diagnosis of COVID-19 in the general emergency population in the UK and to find the association between imaging features and outcomes in these patients. Design: Retrospective analysis of electronic patient records Setting: Tertiary academic health science centre and designated centre for high consequence infectious diseases in London, UK. Participants: 1,198 patients who attended the emergency department with paired RT-PCR swabs for SARS-CoV 2 and CXR between 16th March and 16th April 2020 Main outcome measures: Sensitivity and specificity of CXR and CT for diagnosis of COVID-19 using the British Society of Thoracic Imaging reporting templates. Reference standard was any reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) positive naso-oropharyngeal swab within 30 days of attendance. Odds ratios of CXR in association with vital signs, laboratory values and 30-day outcomes were calculated. Results: Sensitivity and specificity of CXR for COVID-19 diagnosis were 0.56 (95% CI 0.51-0.60) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.54-0.65), respectively. For CT scans these were 0.85 (95% CI 0.79-0.90) and 0.50 (95% CI 0.41-0.60), respectively. This gave a statistically significant mean increase in sensitivity with CT compared with CXR, of 29% (95% CI 19%-38%, p<0.0001). Specificity was not significantly different between the two modalities. Chest X-ray findings were not statistically significantly or clinical meaningfully associated with vital signs, laboratory parameters or 30-day outcomes. Conclusions: Computed tomography has substantially improved diagnostic performance over CXR in COVID-19. CT should be strongly considered in the initial assessment for suspected COVID-19. This gives potential for increased sensitivity and considerably faster turnaround time, where capacity allows and balanced against excess radiation exposure risk.

Chest X-Rays Findings in Patients Positive for COVID 19 at Sheikh Zayed Hospital Lahore

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 1196-1199
Author(s):  
A. Z. Sheikh ◽  
Z. Tariq ◽  
S. Noor ◽  
A. Ambreen ◽  
S. Awan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ground Glass Opacity ◽  
British Society ◽  
Ground Glass ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
X Rays ◽  
Middle Zone ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Thoracic Imaging ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Chest X Ray

Aim: To assess the results of chest x ray radiographs of patients positive for Covid-19, presented at the tertiary care hospital according to the classification by the British Society of Thoracic Imaging (BSTI. Place and Duration: In COVID-19 Ward (Department of Medicine) Sheikh Zayed Hospital, Lahore for three months duration from January 2021 to March 2021. Methods: A total of 96 patients were selected. In this observational study, positive COVID-19 patient determined by the reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) were enrolled for this study above the age of 14 years. CXR results were classified conferring to BSTI documentation and classification in terms of percentage and frequency. Results: Chest rays of 96 patients who tested positive for Covid-19 by RT-PCR over the age of 14 years were examined. Chest X-rays are classified according to the BSTI Covid-19 X-ray classification. Out of 96 patients, 10 patients (10.41%) had normal chest x-rays, 19 (19.80%) patients had classic bilateral, peripheral and basal consolidation / ground glass opacity (GMO), 60 (62.5%) had unspecified group,7(7.29%) patients have poor quality X-ray film. The unilateral involvement was noticed in 15 and bilateral in 49 patients, 12 of the patients had diffuse involvement on chest radiograph and peripheral involvement in 39 patients. According to regional dominance, 41 of the unspecified (42.70%) had middle and lower lung involvement, 7 (7.29%) had only the middle zone, and 8 (8.33%) had involvement of lower zone. Conclusions: In this study, Covid-19 chest X-rays are usually presented as ground glass opacity, mixed consolidation with GGOs in the middle and lower peripheral areas of the bilateral lung. Chest X-ray BSTI classification is used to classify Covid-19 severity in our patients, thus differentiating in the classic Covid-19 of the middle zone versus low zone involvement. Keywords: Consolidation, Covid, Ground Glass Opacity, Chest Image.

Should Chest X-ray Be Used in Diagnosing COVID-19?

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Cristina Z. San Jose ◽  
Valentin C. Dones
Keyword(s):  
British Society ◽  
Normal Lung ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Thoracic Imaging ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Canadian Association ◽  
Lung Abnormalities ◽  
Chest X Ray ◽  
Low Sensitivity ◽  
Pcr Test

While chest x-ray is readily available and may precede RT-PCR test, chest x-ray has low sensitivity early in the COVID-19 disease and shows non-specific lung abnormalities in COVID-19 patients. Chest x-ray is part of the initial diagnostic tool used on COVID-19 patients in some hospitals as it yields fast results compared with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Chest Computed Tomography (CT) has been reported to be more sensitive than chest x-ray in determining the presence of COVID-19. Chest x-ray findings in confirmed COVID-19 patients show:  Normal lung findings early in the illness and in mildly symptomatic patients Typical ground-glass opacities and consolidation in the lung periphery Lung abnormalities are non-specific and may likewise be present in other infections and coronavirus-types of pneumonia The American College of Radiology (ACR), Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR), Canadian Society of Thoracic Radiology (CSTR), and British Society of Thoracic Imaging do not recommend the use of chest x-ray to diagnose COVID-19. The Fleisher Society, composed of radiologists and pulmonologists in ten countries, does not recommend a chest x-ray for patients suspected of mild COVID-19. A chest x-ray is recommended for patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 needing immediate triage and patients at high risk for disease progression. Despite presence of chest x-ray findings suggesting COVID-19, RT-PCR test remains the standard diagnostic procedure.

scholarly journals Chest X-ray findings in COVID-19: A Pictorial Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (Supp-1) ◽  
pp. 44-49
Author(s):  
Nasir Khan ◽  
Muhammad Umar ◽  
Maria Khaliq ◽  
Hina Hanif ◽  
Misbah Durrani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
British Society ◽  
Ground Glass ◽  
X Rays ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Radiological Investigation ◽  
Thoracic Imaging ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Pictorial Review ◽  
Clinical Scenarios ◽  
Chest X Ray

Introduction: Chest X-ray and Computed tomography(CT) of chest play an important role in the diagnosis and management of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19). As chest CT may not be readily available in most clinical setups X-ray Chest plays a pivotal role in such clinical scenarios and an irreplaceable initial radiological investigation of these patients. Objective: The objective of this article is to identify and elaborate the commonest appearances and patterns of lung changes on Chest X rays in COVID-19 positive patients confirmed on RT-PCR COVID testing. Materials and Methods: Cross-sectional descriptive-analytical study of Chest X-ray findings of 294  RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted across 3 hospitals (Rawalpindi institute of urology (RIU), Benazir Bhutto Hospital (BBH) and Holy Family Hospital (HFH)) from March 30th, 2020 till April 30th, 2020. CXR was analyzed for consolidation patches, ground-glass opacification (GGO), multi-lobe involvement, bilateral distribution, and pleural fluid. The chest X-ray with positive findings was graded into mild, moderate, and severe grades using BSTI (British Society of Thoracic imaging) guidelines. Results: Mean age of study patients was 45.5 years. Among the study population 230 (78.2 %) were male and 64 (21.8%) female. On baseline chest X rays, consolidations were the commonest finding (n=84, 28.5%), followed by ground-glass opacity (n=17, 5.7 %). The more common locations were peripheral and lower zones, and the majority had bilateral lung involvement (Table 1). Pleural effusions were found in only 5 of the study patients.  Among these patients, 187 (63.6%) had an initial normal chest X-ray. Moreover, 35, 34, and 38patients had mild, moderate, and severe diseases respectively. Conclusion: Chest X-ray is an important initial radiological investigation for COVID 19 patients and plays an important role in the management during the course of the disease.

scholarly journals Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Detection Tests for Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 53 (12) ◽  
pp. 3738-3749 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Chartrand ◽  
Nicolas Tremblay ◽  
Christian Renaud ◽  
Jesse Papenburg
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Respiratory Syncytial Virus ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reference Standard ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Test Sensitivity ◽  
Subgroup Analyses ◽  
Syncytial Virus

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) rapid antigen detection tests (RADT) are extensively used in clinical laboratories. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of RADTs for diagnosis of RSV infection and to determine factors associated with accuracy estimates. We searched EMBASE and PubMed for diagnostic-accuracy studies of commercialized RSV RADTs. Studies reporting sensitivity and specificity data compared to a reference standard (reverse transcriptase PCR [RT-PCR], immunofluorescence, or viral culture) were considered. Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characteristics, diagnostic-accuracy estimates, and study quality. Accuracy estimates were pooled using bivariate random-effects regression models. Heterogeneity was investigated with prespecified subgroup analyses. Seventy-one articles met inclusion criteria. Overall, RSV RADT pooled sensitivity and specificity were 80% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76% to 83%) and 97% (95% CI, 96% to 98%), respectively. Positive- and negative-likelihood ratios were 25.5 (95% CI, 18.3 to 35.5) and 0.21 (95% CI, 0.18 to 0.24), respectively. Sensitivity was higher in children (81% [95% CI, 78%, 84%]) than in adults (29% [95% CI, 11% to 48%]). Because of this disparity, further subgroup analyses were restricted to pediatric data (63 studies). Test sensitivity was poorest using RT-PCR as a reference standard and highest using immunofluorescence (74% versus 88%;P< 0.001). Industry-sponsored studies reported significantly higher sensitivity (87% versus 78%;P= 0.01). Our results suggest that the poor sensitivity of RSV RADTs in adults may preclude their use in this population. Furthermore, industry-sponsored studies and those that did not use RT-PCR as a reference standard likely overestimated test sensitivity.

scholarly journals Corticosteroid injections during the COVID-19 pandemic

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (9) ◽  
pp. 605-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
David McKean ◽  
Siok Li Chung ◽  
Rory Fairhead ◽  
Oliver Bannister ◽  
Malgorzata Magliano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Observational Study ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Antibody Test ◽  
British Society ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Antibody Testing ◽  
Igg Antibody ◽  
Thoracic Imaging ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Corticosteroid Injections

Aims To describe the incidence of adverse clinical outcomes related to COVID-19 infection following corticosteroid injections (CSI) during the COVID-19 pandemic. To describe the incidence of positive SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing, positive SARS-COV2 IgG antibody testing or positive imaging findings following CSI at our institution during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A retrospective observational study was undertaken of consecutive patients who had CSI in our local hospitals between 1 February and 30June 2020. Electronic patient medical records (EPR) and radiology information system (RIS) database were reviewed. SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing, SARS-COV2 IgG antibody testing, radiological investigations, patient management, and clinical outcomes were recorded. Lung findings were categorized according to the British Society of Thoracic Imaging (BSTI) guidelines. Reference was made to the incidence of lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases in our region. Results Overall, 1,656 lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases were identified in our upper tier local authority (UTLA), a rate of 306.6 per 100,000, as of 30June 2020. A total of 504 CSI injections were performed on 443 patients between 1 February and 30June 2020. A total of 11 RT-PCR tests were performed on nine patients (2% of those who had CSI), all of which were negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and five patients (1.1%) received an SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody test, of which 2 (0.5%) were positive consistent with prior COVID-19 infection, however both patients were asymptomatic. Seven patients (1.6%) had radiological investigations for respiratory symptoms. One patient with indeterminate ground glass change was identified. Conclusion The incidence of positive COVID-19 infection following corticosteroid injections was very low in our cohort and no adverse clinical outcomes related to COVID-19 infection following CSI were identified. Our findings are consistent with CSI likely being low risk during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of this small observational study are supportive of the current multi-society guidelines regarding the judicious use of CSI. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:605–611.

scholarly journals Chest X-ray findings in COVID-19 patients: a descriptive study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asraf Hussain ◽  
Jeetendra Mishra ◽  
Achutanand Lal Karn ◽  
Alok Kumar Singh ◽  
Parwez Ansari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Descriptive Study ◽  
British Society ◽  
Ground Glass ◽  
X Rays ◽  
Lower Zone ◽  
Thoracic Imaging ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Peripheral Lung ◽  
Normal Chest ◽  
Chest X Ray

Background: Early suspicion and diagnosis remains the cornerstone for the better outcome of patients and to decrease cross infection in cases of COVID-19 pneumonia. In a country like Nepal X-ray facilities are readily available radiological tool in most of the centers and can be important screening tool.  There is a lack of studies detailing the chest XR (C-XR) findings in these patients when compared to that dedicated to the CT features. Study aims to describe the patterns of the lung opacities in CXR in these patients.Methods: This is retrospective descriptive study conducted at NMCTH in COVID-19 patients from 12 September to 17 October 2020. Demographic characteristics, symptoms, co-morbidities and C-XR findings were studied. CXR findings were categorized according to BSTI classification.Results: Among 111 COVID-19 RT-PCR positive cases admitted 102 (91.9%) belonged to age group 18-65 years, 89 (80.2%) were males. Cough and fever were the commonest symptoms present in 109 (98.2%) patients. Ischemic heart disease and hypertension in 32 (28.8%) patients were the commonest co morbidities. According to British society of thoracic imaging (BSTI) COVID-19 CXR classification, six patients (5.4%) had normal chest X-rays. Classic/probable COVID-19 picture was present in 79 (71.17%) patients while (7.2%) had intermediate for COVID-19 X-ray findings. Among 79 patients with classic/probable COVID-19 CXR findings 71 (89.8%) had bilateral consolidation/ground glass haze, 72 (91.1%) had peripheral lung involvement while 66 (83.5%) had middle and lower zone involvement.Conclusions: Ground glass opacities/consolidations with bilateral location, peripheral distribution and middle- lower zone predominance were the commonest X-ray findings in our study.

scholarly journals Cohort Study: The Accuracy of Screening Methods of COVID-19 in Pregnancy: Practical Approach in Low Resources Health Services

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Ilham Aldika Akbar ◽  
Khanizyah Erza Gumilar ◽  
Eccita Rahestyningtyas ◽  
Manggala Pasca Wardhana ◽  
Pungky Mulawardhana ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Antibody Test ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Low Middle Income Countries ◽  
Chest X Ray ◽  
Rapid Antibody

Background All pregnant women in labor should be universally screened for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) during pandemic periods using Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) test. In many low-middle income countries, screening method was developed as an initial examination because of limited availability of RT-PCR tests. Objectives This study aims to evaluate the screening methods of COVID-19 accuracy in pregnant women. Material and Methods We recruited all pregnant women with suspicion of COVID-19 from April - August 2020 at Universitas Airlangga hospital, Surabaya, Indonesia. The participant was divided into two groups based on RT-PCR results: COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 group. The proportion of positive signs & symptoms, rapid antibody test, abnormal findings in chest x-ray, and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) value were then compared between both groups. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive values (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy (DOR) were calculated. Results A total 141 pregnant women with suspected COVID-19 cases were recruited for this study. This consist of 62 COVID-19 cases (43.9%) and 79 non COVID-19 pregnant women (56.1%). The sensitivity, spesificity, PPV, NPV, and diagnostic accuracy of each parameter are as follow: clinical sign & symptoms (24.19%, 75.95%, 3.92%, 96.11%, 65.87%), rapid antibody test (72.73%, 35.06%, 4.35%, 96.94%, 36.53%), chest x-ray (40.68%, 59.45%, 3.92%, 96.11%, 58.76%), and NLR > 5.8 (41.38%, 72%, 5.66%, 96.80%, 70.81%). Conclusions The use of combined screening methods can classify pregnant women with high-risk COVID-19 before definitively diagnosed with RT-PCR. This practice will help to reduce RT-PCR need in a limited resources country.

scholarly journals The role of CT chest in screening for asymptomatic COVID-19 infection in self-isolating patients prior to elective oncological surgery: findings from a UK Cancer Hub

2021 ◽  
Vol 94 (1117) ◽  
pp. 20200994
Author(s):  
Derfel ap Dafydd ◽  
Michelle O’Mahony ◽  
Shaman Jhanji ◽  
Anand Devaraj ◽  
William Allum ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Royal College ◽  
Recovery Phase ◽  
British Society ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Thoracic Imaging ◽  
Included Patient ◽  
Thoracic And Abdominal ◽  
Second Wave ◽  
Test Probability

Objectives: In accordance with initial guidance from the Royal College of Surgeons and Royal College of Radiologists, we evaluated the utility of CT of the chest in the exclusion of asymptomatic COVID-19 infection prior to elective cancer surgery on self-isolating patients during the pandemic. Methods: All surgical referrals without symptoms of COVID-19 infection in April and May 2020 were included. Patient records were retrospectively reviewed. Screening included CT chest for major thoracic and abdominal surgery. CTs were reported according to British Society of Thoracic Imaging guidelines and correlated with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and surgical outcomes. Results: The prevalence of RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 infection in our screened population was 0.7% (5/681). 240 pre-operative CTs were performed. 3.8% (9/240) of CTs were reported as abnormal, only one of which was RT-PCR positive. 2% (5/240) of cases had surgery postponed based on CT results. All nine patients with CTs reported as abnormal have had surgery, all without complication. Conclusion: The prevalence of asymptomatic COVID-19 infection in our screened population was low. The pre-test probability of CT chest in asymptomatic, self-isolating patients is consequently low. CT can produce false positives in this setting, introducing unnecessary delay in surgery for a small proportion of cases. Advances in knowledge: Self-isolation, clinical assessment and RT-PCR are effective at minimising COVID-19 related surgical risk. The addition of CT chest is unhelpful. Our data have particular relevance during the second wave of infection and in the recovery phase.

scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of a SARS-CoV-2 rapid test and optimal time for seropositivity according to the onset of symptoms

2022 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Nespolo de David ◽  
Fernanda Hammes Varela ◽  
Ivaine Tais Sauthier Sartor ◽  
Márcia Polese-Bonatto ◽  
Ingrid Rodrigues Fernandes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Lateral Flow Immunoassay ◽  
Optimal Time ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Serological Tests ◽  
Over Time

Point-of-care serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 have been used for COVID-19 diagnosis. However, their accuracy over time regarding the onset of symptoms is not fully understood. We aimed to assess the accuracy of a point-of-care lateral flow immunoassay (LFI). Subjects, aged over 18 years, presenting clinical symptoms suggestive of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection were tested once by both nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal RT-PCR and LFI. The accuracy of LFI was assessed in periodic intervals of three days in relation to the onset of symptoms. The optimal cut-off point was defined as the number of days required to achieve the best sensitivity and specificity. This cut-off point was also used to compare LFI accuracy according to participants’ status: outpatient or hospitalized. In total, 959 patients were included, 379 (39.52%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR, and 272 (28.36%) tested positive with LFI. LFI best performance was achieved after 10 days of the onset of symptoms, with sensitivity and specificity of 84.9% (95%CI: 79.8-89.1) and 94.4% (95%CI: 91.0-96.8), respectively. Although the specificity was similar (94.6% vs. 88.9%, p = 0.051), the sensitivity was higher in hospitalized patients than in outpatients (91.7% vs. 82.1%, p = 0.032) after 10 days of the onset of symptoms. Best sensitivity of point-of-care LFI was found 10 days after the onset of symptoms which may limit its use in acute care. Specificity remained high regardless of the number of days since the onset of symptoms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document