Literature DB >> 34019562

Real-life clinical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test in symptomatic patients.

Elisa Kortela1, Vesa Kirjavainen2, Maarit J Ahava2, Suvi T Jokiranta3, Anna But4, Anna Lindahl5, Anu E Jääskeläinen2, Annemarjut J Jääskeläinen2, Asko Järvinen1, Pia Jokela2, Hannimari Kallio-Kokko2, Raisa Loginov2, Laura Mannonen2, Eeva Ruotsalainen1, Tarja Sironen6,7, Olli Vapalahti2,6,7, Maija Lappalainen2, Hanna-Riikka Kreivi5, Hanna Jarva2,3, Satu Kurkela2, Eliisa Kekäläinen2,3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Understanding the false negative rates of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing is pivotal for the management of the COVID-19 pandemic and it has implications for patient management. Our aim was to determine the real-life clinical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR.
METHODS: This population-based retrospective study was conducted in March-April 2020 in the Helsinki Capital Region, Finland. Adults who were clinically suspected of SARS-CoV-2 infection and underwent SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing, with sufficient data in their medical records for grading of clinical suspicion were eligible. In addition to examining the first RT-PCR test of repeat-tested individuals, we also used high clinical suspicion for COVID-19 as the reference standard for calculating the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR.
RESULTS: All 1,194 inpatients (mean [SD] age, 63.2 [18.3] years; 45.2% women) admitted to COVID-19 cohort wards during the study period were included. The outpatient cohort of 1,814 individuals (mean [SD] age, 45.4 [17.2] years; 69.1% women) was sampled from epidemiological line lists by systematic quasi-random sampling. The sensitivity (95% CI) for laboratory confirmed cases (repeat-tested patients) was 85.7% (81.5-89.1%) inpatients; 95.5% (92.2-97.5%) outpatients, 89.9% (88.2-92.1%) all. When also patients that were graded as high suspicion but never tested positive were included in the denominator, the sensitivity (95% CI) was: 67.5% (62.9-71.9%) inpatients; 34.9% (31.4-38.5%) outpatients; 47.3% (44.4-50.3%) all.
CONCLUSIONS: The clinical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing was only moderate at best. The relatively high false negative rates of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing need to be accounted for in clinical decision making, epidemiological interpretations, and when using RT-PCR as a reference for other tests.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 34019562     DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251661

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  16 in total

Review 1.  Computed tomography findings in 3,557 COVID-19 infected children: a systematic review.

Authors:  Laleh Ebrahimpour; Mahdis Marashi; Hadi Zamanian; Mahboubeh Abedi
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2021-11

2.  Comparison of clinical characteristics and outcome in RT-PCR positive and false-negative RT-PCR for COVID-19: A Retrospective analysis.

Authors:  Durga Shankar Meena; Bharat Kumar; Arjun Kachhwaha; Deepak Kumar; Satyendra Khichar; Gopal Krishana Bohra; Ankur Sharma; Nikhil Kothari; Pawan Garg; Binit Sureka; Mithu Banerjee; Mahendra Kumar Garg; Sanjeev Misra
Journal:  Infez Med       Date:  2022-09-01

3.  Evaluation of C4b as an adjunct marker in symptomatic RT-PCR negative Covid-19 cases.

Authors:  Bandana Kumari; Krishnan Hajela; Asgar Ali; Abhay Kumar Sharma; Rajesh Kumar Yadav; Alok Ranjan; Rathish Nair; Shreekant Bharti; Satish Dipankar; Prabhat Kumar Singh; Sadhana Sharma
Journal:  Indian J Clin Biochem       Date:  2022-06-20

4.  Deep learning representations to support COVID-19 diagnosis on CT slices.

Authors:  Josué Ruano; John Arcila; David Romo-Bucheli; Carlos Vargas; Jefferson Rodríguez; Óscar Mendoza; Miguel Plazas; Lola Bautista; Jorge Villamizar; Gabriel Pedraza; Alejandra Moreno; Diana Valenzuela; Lina Vázquez; Carolina Valenzuela-Santos; Paul Camacho; Daniel Mantilla; Fabio Martínez Carrillo
Journal:  Biomedica       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 1.173

5.  Isolation precautions cause minor delays in diagnostics and treatment of non-COVID patients.

Authors:  J Paajanen; L K Mäkinen; A Suikkila; M Rehell; M Javanainen; A Lindahl; E Kekäläinen; S Kurkela; K Halmesmäki; V-J Anttila; S Lamminmäki
Journal:  Infect Prev Pract       Date:  2021-10-05

6.  Is adenotonsillectomy safe in covid-19 era? Investigation of sars-cov2 in adenoid and tonsil tissues.

Authors:  Togay Muderris; Abdülhalim Aysel; Reyhan Yiş; Tuba Muderris; İbrahim Mehmet Ali Öktem; Onur Çorakçı
Journal:  Am J Otolaryngol       Date:  2022-04-07       Impact factor: 2.873

7.  Integrated model for COVID-19 diagnosis based on computed tomography artificial intelligence, and clinical features: a multicenter cohort study.

Authors:  Yuki Kataoka; Yuya Kimura; Tatsuyoshi Ikenoue; Yoshinori Matsuoka; Junichi Matsumoto; Junji Kumasawa; Kentaro Tochitatni; Hiraku Funakoshi; Tomohiro Hosoda; Aiko Kugimiya; Michinori Shirano; Fumiko Hamabe; Sachiyo Iwata; Shingo Fukuma
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2022-02

8.  Benefits of integrated screening and vaccination for infection control.

Authors:  Marie Jeanne Rabil; Sait Tunc; Douglas R Bish; Ebru K Bish
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-04-21       Impact factor: 3.752

9.  Optimizing testing for COVID-19 in India.

Authors:  Philip Cherian; Sandeep Krishna; Gautam I Menon
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2021-07-22       Impact factor: 4.475

Review 10.  Recent findings and applications of biomedical engineering for COVID-19 diagnosis: a critical review.

Authors:  Le Minh Bui; Huong Thi Thu Phung; Thuy-Tien Ho Thi; Vijai Singh; Rupesh Maurya; Khushal Khambhati; Chia-Ching Wu; Md Jamal Uddin; Do Minh Trung; Dinh Toi Chu
Journal:  Bioengineered       Date:  2021-12       Impact factor: 3.269

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.