TY - JOUR T1 - FALSE-NEGATIVE RESULTS OF INITIAL RT-PCR ASSAYS FOR COVID-19: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2020.04.16.20066787 SP - 2020.04.16.20066787 AU - Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez AU - Diana Buitrago-Garcia AU - Daniel Simancas-Racines AU - Paula Zambrano-Achig AU - Rosa Del Campo AU - Agustín Ciapponi AU - Omar Sued AU - Laura Martínez-García AU - Anne Rutjes AU - Nicola Low AU - Jose A Perez-Molina AU - Javier Zamora Y1 - 2020/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/21/2020.04.16.20066787.abstract N2 - Background Cases with negative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results at initial testing for suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and found to be positive in a subsequent test, are considered as RT-PCR false-negative cases. False-negative cases have important implications for COVID-19 management, isolation, and risk of transmission. We aimed to review and critically appraise evidence about the proportion of RT-PCR false-negatives at initial testing for COVID-19.Methods We performed a systematic review and critical appraisal of literature with high involvement of stakeholders in the review process. We searched on MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the WHO database of COVID-19 publications, the EPPI-Centre living systematic map of evidence about COVID-19, and the living systematic review developed by the University of Bern (ISPM). Two authors screened and selected studies according to the eligibility criteria and collected data of included studies (no-independent verification). Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We calculated the false-negative proportion with the corresponding 95% CI using a multilevel mixed-effect logistic regression model using STATA 16®. Certainty of the evidence about false-negative cases was rated using the GRADE approach for tests and strategies. The information is current up to 6 April 2020.Findings Five studies enrolling 957 patients were included. All studies were affected by several biases and applicability concerns. Pooled estimation of false-negative proportion was 0.085 (95% CI= 0.034 to 0.196; tau-squared = 1.08; 95% CI= 0.27 to 8.28; p<0.001); however, this estimation is highly affected by unexplained heterogeneity, and its interpretation should be avoided. The certainty of the evidence was judged as very low, due to the risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency issues.Conclusions 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 29% of patients could have an initial RT-PCR false-negative result.Systematic review registration Protocol available on OSF website: https://osf.io/gp38w/Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Protocols https://tinyurl.com/vvbgqya Funding StatementNo external funding receivedAuthor DeclarationsAll 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.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesThe study protocol is available online at https://tinyurl.com/vvbgqya. Most included studies are publically available. Additional data are available upon reasonable request. ER -