Literature DB >> 34118895

Comparison between RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2 and expanded triage in sputum of symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID-19 subjects in Ecuador.

Ariel Torres1, Martha Fors2, Tamaris Rivero3, Karina Pantoja4, Santiago Ballaz5,6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) effectively detects the SARS-COV-2 virus. SARS-CoV-2 Nevertheless, some critical gaps remain in the identification and monitoring of asymptomatic people.
METHODS: This retrospective study included 733 asymptomatic and symptomatic COVID-19 subjects, who were submitted to the RT-qPCR test. The objective was to assess the efficacy of an expanded triage of subjects undergoing the RT-qPCR test for SARS-COV-2 to identify the largest possible number of COVID-19 cases in a hospital setting in Ecuador. SARS-CoV-2 Firstly, the sensitivity and specificity as well as the predictive values of an expanded triage method were calculated. In addition, the Kappa coefficient was also determined to assess the concordance between laboratory test results and the expanded triage.
RESULTS: Of a total of 733 sputum samples; 229 were RT-qPCR-positive (31.2%) and mortality rate reached 1.2%. Overall sensitivity and specificity were 86.0% (95% confidence interval: 81.0-90.0%) and 37.0% (95% confidence interval: 32.0-41.0%) respectively, with a diagnostic accuracy of 52.0% and a Kappa coefficient of 0.73. An association between the positivity of the test and its performance before 10 days was found.
CONCLUSIONS: The clinical sensitivity for COVID-19 detection was within acceptable standards, but the specificity still fell below the values of reference. The lack of symptoms did not always mean to have a negative SARS-COV-2 RT-qPCR test. The expanded triage identified a still unnoticed percentage of asymptomatic subjects showing positive results for the SARS-COV-2 RT-qPCR test. The study also revealed a significant relationship between the number of RT-qPCR-positive cases and the performance of the molecular diagnosis within the first 10 days of COVID-19 in the symptomatic group.

Entities:  

Keywords:  COVID-19; RT-qPCR; SARS-CoV-2;sensitivity; Specificity

Year:  2021        PMID: 34118895     DOI: 10.1186/s12879-021-06272-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Infect Dis        ISSN: 1471-2334            Impact factor:   3.090


  10 in total

1.  Interpreting a covid-19 test result.

Authors:  Jessica Watson; Penny F Whiting; John E Brush
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2020-05-12

2.  Work-related COVID-19 transmission in six Asian countries/areas: A follow-up study.

Authors:  Fan-Yun Lan; Chih-Fu Wei; Yu-Tien Hsu; David C Christiani; Stefanos N Kales
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-05-19       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  CT in relation to RT-PCR in diagnosing COVID-19 in The Netherlands: A prospective study.

Authors:  Hester A Gietema; Noortje Zelis; J Martijn Nobel; Lars J G Lambriks; Lieke B van Alphen; Astrid M L Oude Lashof; Joachim E Wildberger; Irene C Nelissen; Patricia M Stassen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-07-09       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  A preliminary study on serological assay for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 238 admitted hospital patients.

Authors:  Lei Liu; Wanbing Liu; Yaqiong Zheng; Xiaojing Jiang; Guomei Kou; Jinya Ding; Qiongshu Wang; Qianchuan Huang; Yinjuan Ding; Wenxu Ni; Wanlei Wu; Shi Tang; Li Tan; Zhenhong Hu; Weitian Xu; Yong Zhang; Bo Zhang; Zhongzhi Tang; Xinhua Zhang; Honghua Li; Zhiguo Rao; Hui Jiang; Xingfeng Ren; Shengdian Wang; Shangen Zheng
Journal:  Microbes Infect       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 2.700

5.  Clinical Evaluation of Self-Collected Saliva by Quantitative Reverse Transcription-PCR (RT-qPCR), Direct RT-qPCR, Reverse Transcription-Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification, and a Rapid Antigen Test To Diagnose COVID-19.

Authors:  Mayu Nagura-Ikeda; Kazuo Imai; Sakiko Tabata; Kazuyasu Miyoshi; Nami Murahara; Tsukasa Mizuno; Midori Horiuchi; Kento Kato; Yoshitaka Imoto; Maki Iwata; Satoshi Mimura; Toshimitsu Ito; Kaku Tamura; Yasuyuki Kato
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2020-08-24       Impact factor: 5.948

6.  False-negative RT-PCR for COVID-19 and a diagnostic risk score: a retrospective cohort study among patients admitted to hospital.

Authors:  Ankur Gupta-Wright; Colin Kenneth Macleod; Jessica Barrett; Sarah Ann Filson; Tumena Corrah; Victoria Parris; Gurjinder Sandhu; Miriam Harris; Rachel Tennant; Nidhi Vaid; Junko Takata; Sai Duraisingham; Nemi Gandy; Harmeet Chana; Ashley Whittington; Alastair McGregor; Padmasayee Papineni
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-02-09       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Chest CT accuracy in diagnosing COVID-19 during the peak of the Italian epidemic: A retrospective correlation with RT-PCR testing and analysis of discordant cases.

Authors:  Zeno Falaschi; Pietro S C Danna; Roberto Arioli; Alessio Pasché; Domenico Zagaria; Ilaria Percivale; Stefano Tricca; Michela Barini; Ferruccio Aquilini; Stefano Andreoni; Alessandro Carriero
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2020-07-25       Impact factor: 3.528

8.  Systematic review with meta-analysis of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for COVID-19.

Authors:  Beatriz Böger; Mariana M Fachi; Raquel O Vilhena; Alexandre F Cobre; Fernanda S Tonin; Roberto Pontarolo
Journal:  Am J Infect Control       Date:  2020-07-10       Impact factor: 2.918

9.  Diagnosis of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): rRT-PCR or CT?

Authors:  Chunqin Long; Huaxiang Xu; Qinglin Shen; Xianghai Zhang; Bing Fan; Chuanhong Wang; Bingliang Zeng; Zicong Li; Xiaofen Li; Honglu Li
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2020-03-25       Impact factor: 3.528

10.  Diagnostic performance between CT and initial real-time RT-PCR for clinically suspected 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients outside Wuhan, China.

Authors:  Jian-Long He; Lin Luo; Zhen-Dong Luo; Jian-Xun Lyu; Ming-Yen Ng; Xin-Ping Shen; Zhibo Wen
Journal:  Respir Med       Date:  2020-04-21       Impact factor: 4.582

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.