Author: Williams, T. C.; Wastnedge, E.; McAllister, G.; Bhatia, R.; Cuschieri, K.; Kefala, K.; Hamilton, F. J.; Johannessen, I.; Laurenson, I. F.; Shepherd, J.; Stewart, A.; Waters, D.; Wise, H.; Templeton, K.
Title: Sensitivity of RT-PCR testing of upper respiratory tract samples for SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalised patients: a retrospective cohort study. Cord-id: udsabhbr Document date: 2020_6_20
ID: udsabhbr
Snippet: Objectives: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of RT-PCR testing of upper respiratory tract (URT) samples from hospitalised patients with COVID-19, compared to the gold standard of a clinical diagnosis. Methods: All URT RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 in NHS Lothian, Scotland, United Kingdom between the 7th of February and 19th April 2020 (inclusive) was reviewed, and hospitalised patients were identified. All URT RT-PCR tests were analysed for each patient to determine the sequence of n
Document: Objectives: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of RT-PCR testing of upper respiratory tract (URT) samples from hospitalised patients with COVID-19, compared to the gold standard of a clinical diagnosis. Methods: All URT RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 in NHS Lothian, Scotland, United Kingdom between the 7th of February and 19th April 2020 (inclusive) was reviewed, and hospitalised patients were identified. All URT RT-PCR tests were analysed for each patient to determine the sequence of negative and positive results. For those who were tested twice or more but never received a positive result, case records were reviewed, and a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 allocated based on clinical features, discharge diagnosis, and radiology and haematology results. For those who had negative URT RT-PCR tests but a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, respiratory samples were retested using a multiplex respiratory panel, a second SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay, and a human RNase P control. Results: Compared to the gold standard of a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, the sensitivity of an initial URT RT-PCR for COVID-19 was 82.2% (95% confidence interval 79.0-85.1%). Two consecutive URT RT-PCR tests increased sensitivity to 90.6% (CI 88.0-92.7%). A further 2.2% and 0.9% of patients who received a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 were positive on a third and fourth test. Conclusions: The sensitivity of a single RT-PCR test of an URT sample in hospitalised patients is 82.2%. Sensitivity increases to 90.6% when patients are tested twice. A proportion of cases with clinically defined COVID-19 never test positive on URT RT-PCR despite repeated testing.
Search related documents:
Co phrase search for related documents- abbott sars and abi real time system: 1, 2
- abbott sars and low specificity: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
- academic health sciences and local ethical approval: 1
- academic health sciences and local ethical approval accordance: 1
- academic health sciences and local ethical approval accordance testing: 1
- academic health sciences collaboration and local ethical approval: 1
- academic health sciences collaboration and local ethical approval accordance: 1
- academic health sciences collaboration and local ethical approval accordance testing: 1
- academic health sciences collaboration human and local ethical approval: 1
- academic health sciences collaboration human and local ethical approval accordance: 1
- academic health sciences collaboration human and local ethical approval accordance testing: 1
- academic health sciences collaboration human annotated and local ethical approval: 1
- academic health sciences collaboration human annotated and local ethical approval accordance: 1
- academic health sciences collaboration human annotated and local ethical approval accordance testing: 1
Co phrase search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date