RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 FALSE-NEGATIVE RESULTS OF INITIAL RT-PCR ASSAYS FOR COVID-19: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.04.16.20066787
DO 10.1101/2020.04.16.20066787
A1 Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez
A1 Diana Buitrago-Garcia
A1 Daniel Simancas-Racines
A1 Paula Zambrano-Achig
A1 Rosa Del Campo
A1 Agustín Ciapponi
A1 Omar Sued
A1 Laura Martínez-García
A1 Anne Rutjes
A1 Nicola Low
A1 Patrick M. Bossuyt
A1 Jose A Perez-Molina
A1 Javier Zamora
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/13/2020.04.16.20066787.abstract
AB 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 with the corresponding 95% CI 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 a 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 (certainty of evidence: very low). An update of this review when additional studies become available is warranted.Systematic review registration Protocol available on the OSF website: https://osf.io/gp38w/Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Protocols https://osf.io/jserd/ 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://osf.io/jserd/. Most included studies are publically available. Additional data are available upon reasonable request. https://osf.io/jserd/