Abstract
Background Large-scale testing for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR is a key element of the response to COVID-19, but little attention has been paid to the potential frequency and impacts of false positives.
Methods From a meta-analysis of external quality assessments of RT-PCR assays of RNA viruses, we derived a conservative estimate of the range of false positive rates that can reasonably be expected in SARS-CoV-2 testing, and analyzed the effect of such rates on analyses of regional test data and estimates of population prevalence and asymptomatic ratio.
Findings Review of external quality assessments revealed false positive rates of 0-16.7%, with an interquartile range of 0.8-4.0%. Such rates would have large impacts on test data when prevalence is low. Inclusion of such rates significantly alters four published analyses of population prevalence and asymptomatic ratio.
Interpretation The high false discovery rate that results, when prevalence is low, from false positive rates typical of RT-PCR assays of RNA viruses raises questions about the usefulness of mass testing; and indicates that across a broad range of likely prevalences, positive test results are more likely to be wrong than are negative results, contrary to public health advice about SARS-CoV-2 testing. There are myriad clinical and case management implications. Failure to appreciate the potential frequency of false positives and the consequent unreliability of positive test results across a range of scenarios could unnecessarily remove critical workers from service, expose uninfected individuals to greater risk of infection, delay or impede appropriate medical treatment, lead to inappropriate treatment, degrade patient care, waste personal protective equipment, waste human resources in unnecessary contact tracing, hinder the development of clinical improvements, and weaken clinical trials. Measures to raise awareness of false positives, reduce their frequency, and mitigate their effects should be considered.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The was no funding for this research.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Any data relied on that are not included in the manuscript or appendix are available on request.
