Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.contributor.authorArevalo-Rodriguez, Ingrid et al.
dc.date.accessioned2020-07-06T19:42:51Z
dc.date.available2020-07-06T19:42:51Z
dc.date.issued2020-04-21
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.16.20066787en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12663/1964
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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/en_US
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.subjectCOVID-19en_US
dc.subjectCoronavirusen_US
dc.subjectFalse Negative Reactionsen_US
dc.subjectReal-Time Polymerase Chain Reactionen_US
dc.subjectSystematic Reviewen_US
dc.subjectCoronavirus Infectionsen_US
dc.titleFalse-Negative results of initial RT-PCR assays for Covid-19: a systematic reviewen_US
eihealth.countryGlobal (WHO/OMS)en_US
eihealth.categoryVirus: natural history, transmission and diagnosticsen_US
eihealth.typePublished Articleen_US
eihealth.maincategorySlow Spread / Reducir la Dispersiónen_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalmedRxiven_US


Ficheros en el ítem

FicherosTamañoFormatoVer

No hay ficheros asociados a este ítem.

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem