Abstract
Importance 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 practical implications for patient management in healthcare facilities.
Objective To determine the real-life clinical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing.
Design A retrospective study on case series from 4 March – 15 April 2020.
Setting A population-based study conducted in primary and tertiary care in the Helsinki Capital Region, Finland.
Participants Adults who were clinically suspected of SARS-CoV-2 infection and underwent SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing, and who had sufficient data for grading of clinical suspicion of COVID-19 in their medical records were eligible. All 1,194 inpatients admitted to COVID-19 cohort wards during the study period were included. The outpatient cohort of 1,814 individuals was sampled from epidemiological line lists by systematic quasi-random sampling. Altogether 83 eligible outpatients (4.6%) and 3 inpatients (0.3%) were excluded due to insufficient data for grading of clinical suspicion.
Exposures High clinical suspicion for COVID-19 was used as the reference standard for the RT-PCR test. Patients were considered to have high clinical suspicion of COVID-19 if the physician in charge recorded the suspicion on clinical grounds, or the patient fulfilled specifically defined clinical and exposure criteria.
Main measures Sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR by using manually curated clinical characteristics as the gold standard.
Results The study population included 1,814 outpatients (mean [SD] age, 45.4 [17.2] years; 69.1% women) and 1,194 inpatients (mean [SD] age, 63.2 [18.3] years; 45.2% women). The sensitivity (95% CI) for laboratory confirmed cases, i.e. repeatedly tested patients were as follows: 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 following sensitivity values (95% CI) were observed: 67.5% (62.9–71.9%) inpatients; 34.9% (31.4–38.5%) outpatients; 47.3% (44.4–50.3%) all.
Conclusions and relevance 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.
Question What is the clinical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test?
Findings In this population-based retrospective study on medical records of 1,814 outpatients and 1,194 inpatients, the clinical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR was 47.3–89.9%.
Meaning The 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.
Competing Interest Statement
Dr. Kortela reports non-financial support from MSD, outside the submitted work. Prof. Jarvinen reports lecture honoraria from Astellas, OrionPharma, Pfizer, MSD, Sanofi and UnimedicPharma and consultation fee from CSL Behring outside the submitted manuscript. Dr. Kekalainen reports a lecture honorarium from MSD. Other authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by Academy of Finland (Kekalainen, grant no 308913) and Doctoral Programme in Biomedicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki (Jokiranta).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was approved by the local review board (HUS/157/2020-29).
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
Researchers may contact study principal investigators to request access to data.
