Back

Analysis of factors associated early diagnosis in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Ai, J.; Gong, J.; Xing, L.; He, R.; Tian, F.; Wang, J.; Wang, J.; Pei, S. P.; Chen, D.; Huang, G.; Zhang, M.; Qu, G.; Fan, W.; Lin, H.; Li, D.; Pei, B.

2020-04-14 respiratory medicine
10.1101/2020.04.09.20059352 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become the first concern in international affairs as the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is spreading all over the world at a terrific speed. The accuracy of early diagnosis is critical in the control of the spread of the virus. Although the real-time RT-PCR detection of the virus nucleic acid is the current golden diagnostic standard, it has high false negative rate when only apply single test. ObjectiveSummarize the baseline characteristics and laboratory examination results of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Analyze the factors that could interfere with the early diagnosis quantitatively to support the timely confirmation of the disease. MethodsAll suspected patients with COVID-19 were included in our study until Feb 9th, 2020. The last day of follow-up was Mar 20th, 2020. Throat swab real-time RT-PCR test was used to confirm SARS-CoV-2 infection. The difference between the epidemiological profile and first laboratory examination results of COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 patients were compared and analyzed by multiple logistic regression. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and area under curve (AUC) were used to assess the potential diagnostic value in factors, which had statistical differences in regression analysis. ResultsIn total, 315 hospitalized patients were included. Among them, 108 were confirmed as COVID-19 patients and 207 were non-COVID-19 patients. Two groups of patients have significance in comparing age, contact history, leukocyte count, lymphocyte count, C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (p<0.10). Multiple logistic regression analysis showed age, contact history and decreasing lymphocyte count could be used as individual factor that has diagnostic value (p<0.05). The AUC of first RT-PCR test was 0.84 (95% CI 0.73-0.89), AUC of cumulative two times of RT-PCR tests was 0.92 (95% CI 0.88-0.96) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.93-0.99) for cumulative three times of RT-PCR tests. Ninety-six patients showed typical pneumonia radiological features in first CT scan, AUC was 0.74 (95% CI 0.60-0.73). The AUC of patients age, contact history with confirmed people and the decreased lymphocytes were 0.66 (95% CI 0.60-0.73), 0.67 (95% CI 0.61-0.73), 0.62 (95% CI 0.56-0.69), respectively. Taking chest CT scan diagnosis together with patients age and decreasing lymphocytes, AUC would be 0.86 (95% CI 0.82-0.90). The age threshold to predict COVID-19 was 41.5 years, with a diagnostic sensitivity of 0.70 (95% CI 0.61-0.79) and a specificity of 0.59 (95% CI 0.52-0.66). Positive and negative likelihood ratios were 1.71 and 0.50, respectively. Threshold of lymphocyte count to diagnose COVID-19 was 1.53x109/L, with a diagnostic sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CI 0.73-0.88) and a specificity of 0.50 (95% CI 0.43-0.57). Positive and negative likelihood ratios were 1.64 and 0.37, respectively. ConclusionSingle RT-PCR test has relatively high false negative rate. When first RT-PCR test show negative result in suspected patients, the chest CT scan, contact history, age and lymphocyte count should be used combinedly to assess the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.3%
2
Virology Journal
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.3%
3
Journal of Clinical Virology
62 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.2%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 28%
6.4%
5
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.4%
6
Journal of Medical Virology
137 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 24%
4.8%
8
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.6%
9
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.7%
10
Life
27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
11
Journal of Medical Microbiology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
12
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
13
Genomics
60 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
14
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
98 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
15
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
16
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
17
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
18
Aging
69 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
19
EMBO Molecular Medicine
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
20
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
21
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 60%
0.9%
22
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
23
Respiratory Research
19 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
24
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
25
Medical Research Archives
11 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
26
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
27
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
28
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
29
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
100 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
30
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.7%