COVID-19 outbreak and surgical practice: The rationale for suspending non-urgent surgeries and role of testing modalities

Table 1 Sensitivity of computed tomography scan in detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 radiologic findings

Ref.	n	Detection rate (%)
Fang et al[25], 2020	51	98
Chung et al[26], 2020	21	86
Xie et al[22], 2020	167	96
Ai et al[24], 2020	1014	88

Table 2 Detection rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 based on the types of specimens and laboratory methods

Ref.	Biochemistry method	Specimen source	Detection rate (%)	n	Collection time from symptom onset
Wang et al[12], 2020	PCR	BAL	93	15
		Sputum	72	104
		Nasopharygeal	63	8
		Brushings	46	46
		Oropharyngeal	32	398
		Fecal	29	153
Xiao et al[15], 2020	PCR	Feces	53	73
Xie et al[22], 2020	PCR	Pharyngeal	97	167
Fang et al[25], 2020	PCR	Sputum Oropharyngeal	71	51	3 +/- 3 d
Ai et al[24], 2020	PCR	Pharyngeal	59	1014
Guo et al[27], 2020	PCR	Serum	52	140	mean 5.5 d
	IgM ELISA1	Serum	93	58	mean 5.5 d
	IgM ELISA2	Serum	75	82	mean 5.5 d

¹Suspected subjects had consistent clinical, epidemiological, and radiographic findings, but negative serum polymerase chain reaction.

²Confirmed subjects. PCR: Polymerase chain reaction; ELISA: Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; BAL: Broncheoalveolar lavage.

Table 3 Variation in the reported sensitivity of different modalities in the diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2[12,15,22,24-27]

Modality	Detection rate (%)
Pharyngeal PCR	32-97
BAL PCR	93
Feces PCR	29-53
Serum PCR	1-52
Serum IgM ELISA	75-93
CT scan	88-98

PCR: Polymerase chain reaction; ELISA: Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; BAL: Broncheoalveolar lavage; CT: Computed tomography.