Dataset Information

Testing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus 2: Challenges in Getting Good Specimens, Choosing the Right Test, and Interpreting the Results.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

We explore ways to reduce errors in laboratory diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 infection by considering preanalytic, analytic, and postanalytic sources. To address preanalytic challenges, we first consider alternative anatomic sites for specimen collection, then discuss self-collection, alternative sampling devices, and transport media. Strengths and limitations of various analytic test systems are considered in the context of postanalytic challenges associated with making test results meaningful, specifically considering the complex relationship between "positive" test results and reproduction and shedding of intact virus. Finally, we provide recommendations regarding healthcare worker surveillance and release of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 from isolation.

Data sources

Material was derived from a Webinar available to the public, manufacturer's websites, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention websites and from both peer-reviewed papers identified by PubMed search and nonpeer-reviewed papers posted on Biorxiv and Medrxiv. Unpublished data came from the Washington State Department of Health.

Study selection

We included studies that compared diagnostic performance strategies without introducing bias due to use of an imperfect gold standard. Case series and case reports were included as necessary to illuminate the significance of results.

Data extraction

Data were extracted manually.

Data synthesis

Sensitivity, specificity, and CIs were computed from article data using a composite reference standard. Nucleic acid-based tests were assumed to perform at 100% specificity.

Conclusions

Although sputum and bronchoalveolar lavage samples provide the highest diagnostic sensitivity for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2, nasopharyngeal, mid turbinate, and nasal specimens are suitable in most cases and require less use of personal protective equipment. When desired sampling materials are unavailable, alternatives may be substituted with no loss of performance. Both reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction tests and rapid nucleic acid-based tests offer good performance in most circumstances. Testing is not required to release most patients from isolation.

SUBMITTER: Tu YP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7467050 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceA breast pathology diagnosis provides the basis for clinical treatment and management decisions; however, its accuracy is inadequately understood.ObjectivesTo quantify the magnitude of diagnostic disagreement among pathologists compared with a consensus panel reference diagnosis and to evaluate associated patient and pathologist characteristics.Design, setting, and participantsStudy of pathologists who interpret breast biopsies in clinical practices in 8 US states.ExposuresParticipants independently interpreted slides between November 2011 and May 2014 from test sets of 60 breast biopsies (240 total cases, 1 slide per case), including 23 cases of invasive breast cancer, 73 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 72 with atypical hyperplasia (atypia), and 72 benign cases without atypia. Participants were blinded to the interpretations of other study pathologists and consensus panel members. Among the 3 consensus panel members, unanimous agreement of their independent diagnoses was 75%, and concordance with the consensus-derived reference diagnoses was 90.3%.Main outcomes and measuresThe proportions of diagnoses overinterpreted and underinterpreted relative to the consensus-derived reference diagnoses were assessed.ResultsSixty-five percent of invited, responding pathologists were eligible and consented to participate. Of these, 91% (N = 115) completed the study, providing 6900 individual case diagnoses. Compared with the consensus-derived reference diagnosis, the overall concordance rate of diagnostic interpretations of participating pathologists was 75.3% (95% CI, 73.4%-77.0%; 5194 of 6900 interpretations). Among invasive carcinoma cases (663 interpretations), 96% (95% CI, 94%-97%) were concordant, and 4% (95% CI, 3%-6%) were underinterpreted; among DCIS cases (2097 interpretations), 84% (95% CI, 82%-86%) were concordant, 3% (95% CI, 2%-4%) were overinterpreted, and 13% (95% CI, 12%-15%) were underinterpreted; among atypia cases (2070 interpretations), 48% (95% CI, 44%-52%) were concordant, 17% (95% CI, 15%-21%) were overinterpreted, and 35% (95% CI, 31%-39%) were underinterpreted; and among benign cases without atypia (2070 interpretations), 87% (95% CI, 85%-89%) were concordant and 13% (95% CI, 11%-15%) were overinterpreted. Disagreement with the reference diagnosis was statistically significantly higher among biopsies from women with higher (n = 122) vs lower (n = 118) breast density on prior mammograms (overall concordance rate, 73% [95% CI, 71%-75%] for higher vs 77% [95% CI, 75%-80%] for lower, P < .001), and among pathologists who interpreted lower weekly case volumes (P < .001) or worked in smaller practices (P = .034) or nonacademic settings (P = .007).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study of pathologists, in which diagnostic interpretation was based on a single breast biopsy slide, overall agreement between the individual pathologists' interpretations and the expert consensus-derived reference diagnoses was 75.3%, with the highest level of concordance for invasive carcinoma and lower levels of concordance for DCIS and atypia. Further research is needed to understand the relationship of these findings with patient management.

Project description:BackgroundAt the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, guidance was needed more than ever to direct frontline healthcare and national containment strategies. Rigorous guidance based on robust research was compromised by the emergence of the pandemic and the urgency of need for guidance. Rather than aiming to "get guidance right", guidance developers needed to "get guidance right now".AimTo examine how guidance developers have responded to the need for credible guidance at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsAn exploratory mixed-methods study was conducted among guidance developers. A web-based survey and follow-up interviews were used to examine the most pertinent challenges in developing COVID-19 guidance, strategies used to address these, and perspectives on the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on future guidance development.ResultsThe survey was completed by 46 guidance developers. Survey findings showed that conventional methods of guidance development were largely unsuited for COVID-19 guidance, with 80% (n = 37) of respondents resorting to other methods. From the survey and five follow-up interviews, two themes were identified to bolster the credibility of guidance in a setting of extreme uncertainty: (1) strengthening end-user involvement and (2) conjoining evidence review and recommendation formulation. 70% (n = 32) of survey respondents foresaw possible changes in future guidance production, most notably shortening development time, by reconsidering how to balance between rigour and speed for different types of questions.Conclusion"Getting guidance right" and "getting guidance right now" are not opposites, rather uncertainties are always part of guidance development and require guidance developers to balance scientific robustness with usability, acceptability, adequacy and contingency. This crisis points to the need to acknowledge uncertainties of scientific evidence more explicitly and points to mechanisms to live with such uncertainty, thus extending guidance development methods and processes more widely.