Literature DB >> 33622845

Interpreting COVID-19 Test Results in Clinical Settings: It Depends!

Rachael Piltch-Loeb1, Kyeong Yun Jeong1, Kenneth W Lin1, John Kraemer1, Michael A Stoto1.   

Abstract

Tests for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are intended for a disparate and shifting range of purposes: (1) diagnosing patients who present with symptoms to inform individual treatment decisions; (2) organizational uses such as "cohorting" potentially infected patients and staff to protect others; and (3) contact tracing, surveillance, and other public health purposes. Often lost when testing is encouraged is that testing does not by itself confer health benefits. Rather, testing is useful to the extent it forms a critical link to subsequent medical or public health interventions. Such interventions might be individual level, like better diagnosis, treatment, isolation, or quarantine of contacts. They might aid surveillance to understand levels and trends of disease within a defined population that enables informed decisions to implement or relax social distancing measures. In this article, we describe the range of available COVID-19 tests; their accuracy and timing considerations; and the specific clinical, organizational, and public health considerations that warrant different testing strategies. Three representative clinical scenarios illustrate the importance of appropriate test use and interpretation. The reason a patient seeks testing is often a strong indicator of the pretest probability of infection, and thus how to interpret test results. In addition, the level of population spread of the virus and the timing of testing play critical roles in the positive or negative predictive value of the test. We conclude with practical recommendations regarding the need for testing in various contexts, appropriate tests and testing methods, and the interpretation of test results. © Copyright 2021 by the American Board of Family Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  COVID-19; Clinical Decision-Making; Contact Tracing; Evidence-Based Medicine; Population Health; Probability; Public Health; Sensitivity and Specificity

Year:  2021        PMID: 33622845     DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2021.S1.200413

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Board Fam Med        ISSN: 1557-2625            Impact factor:   2.657


  3 in total

1.  SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 Testing: The Tower of Babel.

Authors:  Chiara Reno; Jacopo Lenzi; Davide Golinelli; Davide Gori; Carlo Signorelli; John Kraemer; Michael A Stoto; Elisa Avitabile; Maria Paola Landini; Tiziana Lazzarotto; Maria Carla Re; Paola Rucci; Gloria Taliani; Davide Trerè; Caterina Vocale; Maria Pia Fantini
Journal:  Acta Biomed       Date:  2020-11-09

Review 2.  COVID-19 data are messy: analytic methods for rigorous impact analyses with imperfect data.

Authors:  Michael A Stoto; Abbey Woolverton; John Kraemer; Pepita Barlow; Michael Clarke
Journal:  Global Health       Date:  2022-01-06       Impact factor: 4.185

3.  Performance and usefulness of a novel automated immunoassay HISCL SARS-CoV-2 Antigen assay kit for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

Authors:  Kaori Saito; Tomohiko Ai; Akinori Kawai; Jun Matsui; Yoshiyuki Fukushima; Norihiro Kikukawa; Takuya Kyoutou; Masayoshi Chonan; Takeaki Kawakami; Yoshie Hosaka; Shigeki Misawa; Haruhi Takagi; Yasushi Matsushita; Makoto Hiki; Atsushi Okuzawa; Satoshi Hori; Toshio Naito; Takashi Miida; Kazuhisa Takahashi; Yoko Tabe
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 4.379

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.