Comparison of computed tomography (CT) findings with RT-PCR in the diagnosis of COVID-19 in children

1Citations
Citations of this article
35Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to compare chest computed tomography (CT) findings with reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test results in children with probable or definitive diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: In this retrospective archive study, pediatric patients who were followed up in the hospital with a possible or definitive diagnosis of COVID-19 and who had chest CT at presentation were included. CT scan images of the patients were reinterpreted by a pediatric radiologist and compared with their RT-PCR test results. Results: Of the total of 89 patients, 33 had negative and 56 had positive RT-PCR tests. The presence of pulmonary lesions and consolidation was statistically significantly higher in the RT-PCR negative group than in the RT-PCR positive group (p = 0.037 and 0.001, respectively). Lobe involvement of 0%–25% was higher in the RT-PCR positive group (p = 0.001), and lobe involvements of 25%–50% and 50%–75% were significantly higher in the RT-PCR negative group (p = 0.001 and 0.005, respectively). Central and perihilar involvement was found to be statistically significant in the RT-PCR negative group (p = 0.008 and 0.005, respectively). Conclusion: Chest CT findings may provide some clues in predicting RT-PCR positivity in children with a probable diagnosis of COVID-19. Lobe involvement percentage of up to 25% is a finding in favor of patients with positive RT-PCR test, whereas 25%–75% lobe involvement, central and perihilar involvement, and consolidation can be interpreted in favor of patients with negative RT-PCR test.

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bağcı, Z., & Keçeli, A. M. (2021). Comparison of computed tomography (CT) findings with RT-PCR in the diagnosis of COVID-19 in children. Pediatric Pulmonology, 56(7), 1985–1991. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppul.25426

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free