Copyright
©The Author(s) 2021.
World J Radiol. Jun 28, 2021; 13(6): 171-191
Published online Jun 28, 2021. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v13.i6.171
Published online Jun 28, 2021. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v13.i6.171
Table 1 Three main chest radiographic scoring systems use for coronavirus disease-2019 and their characteristic features
Chest Radiography Scoring Systems for COVID-19 | |||
Characteristics of Chest Radiography Scoring Systems | Severe Acute Respiratory Infection[48] | Radiographic Assessment of Lung Edema[49] | Chest X-ray Score[51] |
Division of Lungs | None | 2 lungs | 6 zones (3 zones each lung) |
Methodology of Score Calculation | Entire lungs scored as one | Each lung scored and totaled | Each zone scored and totaled |
Characteristics Scored | Various radiographic findings | 1GGOs or consolidation | Various radiographic findings |
Scoring Scale | 1 = normal; 2 = patchy/hyperinflation/bronchial wall thickening; 3 = focal consolidation; 4 = multifocal consolidation; 5 = diffuse alveolar change | 1 ≤ 25%; 2 = 25%-50%; 3 = 50%-75%; 4 ≥ 75% | 0 = no abnormalities; 1 = interstitial infiltrates; 2 = interstitial (predominant) & alveolar infiltrates; 3 = interstitial & alveolar (predominant) infiltrates |
Designed Specifically for COVID-19 Disease | No | No | Yes |
Table 2 Three main chest computed tomography scoring systems use for coronavirus disease-2019 and their characteristic features
Chest CT Scoring Systems for COVID-19 | |||
Characteristics of Chest CT Scoring Systems | Chest Computed Tomography Severity Score[52] | Total Severity Score [53] | Chest Computed Tomography Score [54] |
Division of Lungs | 20 regions for each lung | 5 lobes | 5 lobes |
Methodology of Score Calculation | Each region scored & amount totaled | Each lobe scored and amount totaled | Each lobe scored and amount totaled |
Characteristics Scored | Amount of opacification | % of disease in each lobe (1GGOs, mixed GGOs, consolidation) | % of disease in each lobe (no specific features) |
Scoring Scale | 0 = 0%; 1 = 1%-50%; 2 = 51%-100% | 0 = 0%; 1 = 1%-25%; 2 = 26%-50%; 3 = 51%-75%; 4 = 76%-100% | 0 = 0%; 1 ≤ 5%; 2 = 5%-25%; 3 = 26%-49%; 4 = 50%-75%; 5 ≥ 75% |
Sensitivity & Specificity | 83% & 94% | 83% & 100% | 80% & 82% |
Lowest Score for Severe COVID-19 Cases | 19.5 | 7.5 | 7 |
Designed Specifically for COVID-19 Disease | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Table 3 Four most common imaging modalities used in the diagnosis and management of coronavirus disease-2019 and their unique features/findings characterized by organ system
Characteristic Features of COVID-19 by Imaging Modality | ||||
Organ Systems Impacted by COVID-19 | 1CT | Ultrasound | Magnetic resonance imaging | Chest radiography |
Pulmonary | 2GGOs and reticular opacities; consolidations; 3crazy paving pattern; multifocal and bilateral in a peripheral, sub-pleural, and posterior distribution | 4B-line artifacts; irregularly thickened pleura; sub-pleural consolidations | Similar to CT | Interstitial reticular and reticulonodular patterns; alveolar hazy pulmonary opacities (equivalent to GGOs on CT); consolidations; multifocal & bilateral in a peripheral, sub-pleural, and posterior distribution |
Cardiac | Cardiac thromboembolism | Pericardial effusion | Myocarditis; pericardial effusion | |
Neurological | Stroke (ischemic/thromboembolic) | Venous sinus thrombosis | Stroke (ischemic/thromboembolic); venous sinus thrombosis, hyper-intensities | |
Gastrointestinal | Wall thickening; edema; fluid filled intestinal lumen; mucosal hyper-enhancement; mesenteric vascular thrombi/ischemia | Portal vein thrombosis | ||
Genitourinary | Perinephric fat stranding | Renal vein/artery thrombosis |
Table 4 Two main standardized reporting systems used for coronavirus disease-2019 compared by their characteristic features
Standardized CT Imaging Reporting Systems for COVID-19 | ||
Characteristics of the Reporting System | Coronavirus Disease 2019 Reporting and Data System[118]-Dutch Radiological Society | Consensus Statement on Reporting Chest CT Findings for COVID-19-Radiological Society of North America[120] |
Type of Reporting System | Quantitative | Qualitative |
Components & Relationship Between Both Reporting Systems | 0 = inadequate or suboptimal imaging | No equivalent |
1 = very low suspicion for COVID-19 with findings of non-infectious etiology | Negative for pneumonia = no CT features to suggest pneumonia | |
2 = low suspicion of COVID-19 with infectious findings not typical for COVID-19 | Atypical appearance = absence of typical or indeterminate features & the presence of lobar or segmental consolidation, but no GGOs or centrilobular nodules | |
3 = equivocal scan with common findings of COVID-19 | No equivalent | |
4 = high suspicion of COVID-19 with typical features that overlap with other viral pneumonias | Indeterminate appearance = absence of typical features and the presence of multifocal, diffuse, or unilateral GGOs with or without consolidation in a non-specific distribution | |
5 = very high suspicion of COVID-19 with typical findings of disease in typical locations | Typical appearance = peripheral and bilateral GGOs with or without consolidations/crazy paving pattern | |
6 = RT-PCR positive COVID-19 | No equivalent | |
Inter-observer agreement | Absolute agreement between 68.2% of observers; > 80% observer agreement on COVID-19 being low to very low or high to very high | No data |
- Citation: Pezzutti DL, Wadhwa V, Makary MS. COVID-19 imaging: Diagnostic approaches, challenges, and evolving advances. World J Radiol 2021; 13(6): 171-191
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1949-8470/full/v13/i6/171.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v13.i6.171