Estimate false-negative RT-PCR rates for SARS-CoV-2. A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Molecular-based tests used to identify symptomatic or asymptomatic patients infected by SARS-CoV-2 are characterized by high specificity but scarce sensitivity, generating false-negative results. We aimed to estimate, through a systematic review of the literature, the rate of RT-PCR false negatives at initial testing for COVID-19.Methods
We systematically searched Pubmed, Embase and CENTRAL as well as a list of reference literature. We included observational studies that collected samples from respiratory tract to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA using RT-PCR, reporting the number of false-negative subjects and the number of final patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis. Reported rates of false negatives were pooled in a meta-analysis as appropriate. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies and graded the quality of evidence according to the GRADE method. All information in this article is current up to February 2021.Results
We included 32 studies, enrolling more than 18,000 patients infected by SARS-CoV-2. The overall false-negative rate was 0.12 (95%CI from 0.10 to 0.14) with very low certainty of evidence. The impact of misdiagnoses was estimated according to disease prevalence; a range between 2 and 58/1,000 subjects could be misdiagnosed with a disease prevalence of 10%, increasing to 290/1,000 misdiagnosed subjects with a disease prevalence of 50%.Conclusions
This systematic review showed that up to 58% of COVID-19 patients may have initial false-negative RT-PCR results, suggesting the need to implement a correct diagnostic strategy to correctly identify suspected cases, thereby reducing false-negative results and decreasing the disease burden among the population.
SUBMITTER: Pecoraro V
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8646643 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundReverse-transcription PCR (RT-PCR) assays are used to test for infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. RT-PCR tests are highly specific and the probability of false positives is low, but false negatives are possible depending on swab type and time since symptom onset.AimTo determine how the probability of obtaining a false-negative test in infected patients is affected by time since symptom onset and swab type.MethodsWe used generalised additive mixed models to analyse publicly available data from patients who received multiple RT-PCR tests and were identified as SARS-CoV-2 positive at least once.ResultsThe probability of a positive test decreased with time since symptom onset, with oropharyngeal (OP) samples less likely to yield a positive result than nasopharyngeal (NP) samples. The probability of incorrectly identifying an uninfected individual due to a false-negative test was considerably reduced if negative tests were repeated 24 hours later. For a small false-positive test probability (<0.5%), the true number of infected individuals was larger than the number of positive tests. For a higher false-positive test probability, the true number of infected individuals was smaller than the number of positive tests.ConclusionNP samples are more sensitive than OP samples. The later an infected individual is tested after symptom onset, the less likely they are to test positive. This has implications for identifying infected patients, contact tracing and discharging convalescing patients who are potentially still infectious.
| S-EPMC7812420 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The early detection and differential diagnosis of respiratory infections increase the chances for successful control of COVID-19 disease. The nucleic acid RT-PCR test is regarded as the current standard for molecular diagnosis. However, the maximal specificity confirmation target ORF1ab gene is considered to be less sensitive than other targets in clinical application. In addition, recent evidence indicated that the initial missed diagnosis of asymptomatic patients with SARS-CoV-2 and discharged patients with "re-examination positive" might be due to low viral load, and the ability of rapid mutation of SARS-CoV-2 also increases the rate of false-negative results. Moreover, the mixed sample nucleic acid detection is helpful in seeking out the early community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 rapidly, but the detection kit needs ultra-high detection sensitivity. Herein, the lowest detection concentration of different nucleic acid detection kits was evaluated and compared to provide direct evidence for the selection of kits for mixed sample detection or make recommendations for the selection of validation kit, which is of great significance for the prevention and control of the current epidemic and the discharge criteria of low viral load patients.
| S-EPMC7673793 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The current COVID-19 pandemic demands massive testing by Real-time RT-PCR (Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction), which is considered the gold standard diagnostic test for the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, the virus continues to evolve with mutations that lead to phenotypic alterations as higher transmissibility, pathogenicity or vaccine evasion. Another big issue are mutations in the annealing sites of primers and probes of RT-PCR diagnostic kits leading to false-negative results. Therefore, here we identify mutations in the N (Nucleocapsid) gene that affects the use of the GeneFinder COVID-19 Plus RealAmp Kit. We sequenced SARS-CoV-2 genomes from 17 positive samples with no N gene detection but with RDRP (RNA-dependent RNA polymerase) and E (Envelope) genes detection, and observed a set of three different mutations affecting the N detection: a deletion of 18 nucleotides (Del28877-28894), a substitution of GGG to AAC (28881-28883) and a frameshift mutation caused by deletion (Del28877-28878). The last one cause a deletion of six AAs (amino acids) located in the central intrinsic disorder region at protein level. We also found this mutation in 99 of the 14,346 sequenced samples by the Sao Paulo state Network for Pandemic Alert of Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, demonstrating the circulation of the mutation in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Continuous monitoring and characterization of mutations affecting the annealing sites of primers and probes by genomic surveillance programs are necessary to maintain the effectiveness of the diagnosis of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8707239 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA false-negative case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is defined as a person with suspected infection and an initial negative result by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, with a positive result on a subsequent test. False-negative cases have important implications for isolation and risk of transmission of infected people and for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to review and critically appraise evidence about the rate of RT-PCR false-negatives at initial testing for COVID-19.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, as well as COVID-19 repositories, including the EPPI-Centre living systematic map of evidence about COVID-19 and the Coronavirus Open Access Project living evidence database. Two authors independently screened and selected studies according to the eligibility criteria and collected data from the included studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We calculated the proportion of false-negative test results using a multilevel mixed-effect logistic regression model. The certainty of the evidence about false-negative cases was rated using the GRADE approach for tests and strategies. All information in this article is current up to July 17, 2020.ResultsWe included 34 studies enrolling 12,057 COVID-19 confirmed cases. All studies were affected by several risks of bias and applicability concerns. The pooled estimate of false-negative proportion was highly affected by unexplained heterogeneity (tau-squared = 1.39; 90% prediction interval from 0.02 to 0.54). The certainty of the evidence was judged as very low due to the risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency issues.ConclusionsThere is substantial and largely unexplained heterogeneity in the proportion of false-negative RT-PCR results. The collected evidence has several limitations, including risk of bias issues, high heterogeneity, and concerns about its applicability. Nonetheless, our findings reinforce the need for repeated testing in patients with suspicion of SARS-Cov-2 infection given that up to 54% of COVID-19 patients may have an initial false-negative RT-PCR (very low certainty of evidence).Systematic review registrationProtocol available on the OSF website: https://tinyurl.com/vvbgqya.
| S-EPMC7728293 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is an essential method for specific diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Unfortunately, false negative test results are often reported. In this study, we attempted to determine the principal causes leading to false negative results of RT-PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNAs in respiratory tract specimens. Multiple sputum and throat swab specimens from 161 confirmed COVID-19 patients were tested with a commercial fluorescent RT-PCR kit targeting the ORF1ab and N regions of SARS-CoV-2 genome. The RNA level of a cellular housekeeping gene ribonuclease P/MRP subunit p30 (RPP30) in these specimens was also assessed by RT-PCR. Data for a total of 1052 samples were retrospectively re-analyzed and a strong association between positive results in SARS-CoV-2 RNA tests and high level of RPP30 RNA in respiratory tract specimens was revealed. By using the ROC-AUC analysis, we identified Ct cutoff values for RPP30 RT-PCR which predicted false negative results for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR with high sensitivity (95.03%-95.26%) and specificity (83.72%-98.55%) for respective combination of specimen type and amplification reaction. Using these Ct cutoff values, false negative results could be reliably identified. Therefore, the presence of cellular materials, likely infected host cells, are essential for correct SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection by RT-PCR in patient specimens. RPP30 could serve as an indicator for cellular content, or a surrogate indicator for specimen quality. In addition, our results demonstrated that false negativity accounted for a vast majority of contradicting results in SARS-CoV-2 RNA test by RT-PCR.
| S-EPMC7399361 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients requiring diagnostic testing for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are routinely assessed by reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) amplification of Sars-CoV-2 virus RNA extracted from oro/nasopharyngeal swabs. Despite the good specificity of the assays certified for SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection, and a theoretical sensitivity of few viral gene copies per reaction, a relatively high rate of false negatives continues to be reported. This is an important challenge in the management of patients on hospital admission and for correct monitoring of the infectivity after the acute phase. In the present report, we show that the use of digital PCR, a high sensitivity method to detect low amplicon numbers, allowed us to correctly detecting infection in swab material in a significant number of false negatives. We show that the implementation of digital PCR methods in the diagnostic assessment of COVID-19 could resolve, at least in part, this timely issue.
| S-EPMC7900100 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe comparative performance of different clinical sampling methods for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-PCR among populations with suspected infection remains unclear. This meta-analysis aims to systematically compare the diagnostic performance of different clinical specimen collection methods.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, medRxiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, and Research Square from Jan 1, 2000, to Nov 16, 2020. We included original clinical studies that examined the performance of nasopharyngeal swabs and any additional respiratory specimens for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection among individuals presenting in ambulatory care. Studies without data on paired samples, or those that only examined different samples from confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases were not useful for examining diagnostic performance of a test and were excluded. Diagnostic performance, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, was examined using random effects models and double arcsine transformation.FindingsOf the 5577 studies identified in our search, 23 studies including 7973 participants with 16 762 respiratory samples were included. Respiratory specimens examined in these studies included 7973 nasopharyngeal swabs, 1622 nasal swabs, 6110 saliva samples, 338 throat swabs, and 719 pooled nasal and throat swabs. Using nasopharyngeal swabs as the gold standard, pooled nasal and throat swabs gave the highest sensitivity of 97% (95% CI 93-100), whereas lower sensitivities were achieved by saliva (85%, 75-93) and nasal swabs (86%, 77-93) and a much lower sensitivity by throat swabs (68%, 35-94). A comparably high positive predictive value was obtained by pooled nasal and throat (97%, 90-100) and nasal swabs (96%, 87-100) and a slightly lower positive predictive value by saliva (93%, 88-97). Throat swabs have the lowest positive predictive value of 75% (95% CI 45-96). Comparably high specificities (range 97-99%) and negative predictive value (range 95-99%) were observed among different clinical specimens. Comparison between health-care-worker collection and self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs showed comparable diagnostic performance. No significant heterogeneity was observed in the analysis of pooled nasal and throat swabs and throat swabs, whereas moderate to substantial heterogeneity (I2 ≥30%) was observed in studies on saliva and nasal swabs.InterpretationOur review suggests that, compared with the gold standard of nasopharyngeal swabs, pooled nasal and throat swabs offered the best diagnostic performance of the alternative sampling approaches for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in ambulatory care. Saliva and nasal swabs gave comparable and very good diagnostic performance and are clinically acceptable alternative specimen collection methods. Throat swabs gave a much lower sensitivity and positive predictive value and should not be recommended. Self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs was not associated with any significant impairment of diagnostic accuracy. Our results also provide a useful reference framework for the proper interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 testing results using different clinical specimens.FundingHong Kong Research Grants Council.
| S-EPMC8041361 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of sample pooling compared to the individual analysis for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by using different commercial platforms for nucleic acid extraction and amplification.MethodsA total of 3519 nasopharyngeal samples received at nine Spanish clinical microbiology laboratories were processed individually and in pools (342 pools of ten samples and 11 pools of nine samples) according to the existing methodology in place at each centre.ResultsWe found that 253 pools (2519 samples) were negative and 99 pools (990 samples) were positive; with 241 positive samples (6.85%), our pooling strategy would have saved 2167 PCR tests. For 29 pools (made out of 290 samples), we found discordant results when compared to their correspondent individual samples, as follows: in 22 of 29 pools (28 samples), minor discordances were found; for seven pools (7 samples), we found major discordances. Sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values for pooling were 97.10% (95% confidence interval (CI), 94.11-98.82), 100%, 100% and 99.79% (95% CI, 99.56-99.90) respectively; accuracy was 99.80% (95% CI, 99.59-99.92), and the kappa concordant coefficient was 0.984. The dilution of samples in our pooling strategy resulted in a median loss of 2.87 (95% CI, 2.46-3.28) cycle threshold (Ct) for E gene, 3.36 (95% CI, 2.89-3.85) Ct for the RdRP gene and 2.99 (95% CI, 2.56-3.43) Ct for the N gene.ConclusionsWe found a high efficiency of pooling strategies for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA testing across different RNA extraction and amplification platforms, with excellent performance in terms of sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values.
| S-EPMC7481316 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Testing is one of the commendable measures for curbing the spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). But, it should be done using the most appropriate specimen and an accurate diagnostic test such as real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). Therefore, a systematic review was conducted to determine the positive detection rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in different clinical specimens using qRT-PCR. A total of 8136 pooled clinical specimens were analyzed to detect SARS-CoV-2, the majority were nasopharyngeal swabs (69.6%). A lower respiratory tract (LRT) specimens had a positive rate (PR) of 71.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 60.3%-82.3%) while no virus was detected in the urinogenital specimens. Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BLF) specimen had the PR of 91.8% (95% CI: 79.9%-103.7%), followed by rectal swabs; 87.8% (95% CI: 78.6%-96.9%) then sputum; 68.1% (95% CI: 56.9%-79.4%). A low PR was observed in oropharyngeal swabs; 7.6% (95% CI: 5.7%-9.6%) and blood samples; 1.0% (95% CI: -0.1%-2.1%) whereas no SARS-CoV-2 was detected in urine samples. Feces had a PR of 32.8% (95% CI:1 5.8%-49.8%). Nasopharyngeal swab, a widely used specimen had a PR of 45.5% (95% CI: 31.2%-59.7%). In this study, SARS-CoV-2 was highly detected in LRT specimens while no virus was detected in urinogenital specimens. BLF had the highest PR followed by rectal swab then sputum. Nasopharyngeal swab which is widely used had moderate PR. Low PR was recorded in oropharyngeal swab and blood samples while no virus was found in urine samples. Last, the virus was detected in feces, suggesting SARS-CoV-2 transmission by the fecal route.
| S-EPMC7404904 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAsymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection occurring in RT-PCR negative individuals represent a poorly characterized cohort with important infection control connotations. While household and community-based studies have evaluated seroprevalence of antibody and transmission dynamics in this group, workplace-based data is currently unavailable.MethodsA cohort study was carried out in July 2021, during and immediately following the peak of the 3rd wave of COVID-19 in Sri Lanka, prior to mass vaccination. A total of 92 unvaccinated individuals between the ages of 17-65 years were purposively sampled from an office and two factory settings. The selected cohort that had been exposed to RT-PCR positive cases in the workplace was tested RT-PCR negative. Serological samples collected six weeks post exposure were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody.ResultsThe seroprevalence for SARS-CoV-2 specific neutralizing antibodies in the overall cohort was 63.04% (58/92). Seroprevalences in the office setting, factory setting 1 and factory setting 2 were 69.2% (9/13), 55.7% (34/61) and 83.33% (15/18), respectively. Primary risk factor associated with seropositivity was face to face contact with no mask for > 15 min (p < 0.024, Odds Ratio (OR); 5.58, 95%CI;1.292- 25.65). Individuals with workspace exposure had significantly higher levels of neutralizing antibodies than those who did not (percentage neutralization in assay 63.3% (SD:21)vs 45.7% (SD:20), p = 0.0042), as did individuals who engaged socially without protective measures (62.4 (SD:21.6)% vs 49.7 (SD:21)%, p = 0.026).ConclusionThere was a high seroprevalence for SARS-CoV-2 specific neutralizing antibodies among RT-PCR negative contacts in workplace settings in Sri Lanka. Higher levels of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection than estimated based on RT-PCR positive contact data indicate need for targeted infection control measures in these settings during future outbreaks.
| S-EPMC9593990 | biostudies-literature