24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      SARS-CoV-2 detection by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction testing: Analysis of false positive results and recommendations for quality control measures

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Testing for SARS-CoV-2 has become a critical component for the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays are currently the predominate method for testing. Quality control (QC) measures utilize known positive and known negative controls to ensure the adequacy of extraction and RT-PCR steps but do not evaluate all components of testing. We have conducted a quality assurance review of our RT-PCR testing for COVID-19 to determine the rate of false positive results in asymptomatic patients and causes for these errors.

          Design

          We have developed a quality control procedure in which all specimens from asymptomatic unexposed persons with SARS-CoV-2 positive tests were retested . When a second test was “non-detected” a third test was performed and a root cause analysis of the erroneous result undertaken.

          Results

          In the study period, 24,717 samples were tested and 6251 were from asymptomatic patients. Of the 288 initial positive tests, 20 (6.9%) were negative on retesting. Review of cycle threshold curves, technologists’ records, location of specimen on testing plates and relationships with high viral load specimens was undertaken. Analysis revealed technologists’ errors (misplacement of specimen in testing plate or contamination) and cross contamination from high viral load specimens in adjacent wells of testing plates were common causes for false positive results.

          Discussion

          SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing is associated with a small number of false positive results, most easily recognized in asymptomatic non-exposed patients. Implementation of a limited retesting protocol identifies clinically significant testing errors and allows review and improvement of laboratory procedures.

          Related collections

          Most cited references6

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Viral RNA load as determined by cell culture as a management tool for discharge of SARS-CoV-2 patients from infectious disease wards

          In a preliminary clinical study, we observed that the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was effective against SARS-CoV-2 by shortening the duration of viral load in Covid-19 patients. It is of paramount importance to define when a treated patient can be considered as no longer contagious. Correlation between successful isolation of virus in cell culture and Ct value of quantitative RT-PCR targeting E gene suggests that patients with Ct above 33–34 using our RT-PCR system are not contagious and thus can be discharged from hospital care or strict confinement for non-hospitalized patients.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            False-negative results of initial RT-PCR assays for COVID-19: A systematic review

            Background A 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. Methods We 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. Results We 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. Conclusions There 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 registration Protocol available on the OSF website: https://tinyurl.com/vvbgqya.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              COVID-19 Testing: The Threat of False-Negative Results

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Pathol Res Pract
                Pathol Res Pract
                Pathology, Research and Practice
                The Author(s). Published by Elsevier GmbH.
                0344-0338
                1618-0631
                4 August 2021
                September 2021
                4 August 2021
                : 225
                : 153579
                Affiliations
                [0005]Department of Pathology and Anatomical Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, United States
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Department of Pathology and Anatomical Sciences, University of Missouri, Medical Sciences Bidg., One Hospital Dr. M263, Columbia, MO 65212.
                Article
                S0344-0338(21)00240-5 153579
                10.1016/j.prp.2021.153579
                8336987
                34385110
                fa981dff-beca-4a05-87b7-24ef3a35043c
                © 2021 The Authors

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                : 8 March 2021
                : 30 July 2021
                : 2 August 2021
                Categories
                Article

                sars-cov-2,polymerase chain reaction,covid-19,false positive results,quality control

                Comments

                Comment on this article