BackgroundA 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.MethodsWe 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 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsThere is 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 (very low certainty of evidence).Systematic review registrationProtocol available on the OSF website: .https://tinyurl.com/vvbgqya.

False-negative results of initial RT-PCR assays for COVID-19: A systematic review / Arevalo-Rodriguez, Ingrid; Buitrago-Garcia, Diana; Simancas-Racines, Daniel; Zambrano-Achig, Paula; Del Campo, Rosa; Ciapponi, Agustin; Sued, Omar; Martinez-García, Laura; Rutjes, Anne W; Low, Nicola; Bossuyt, Patrick M; Perez-Molina, Jose A; Zamora, Javier. - In: PLOS ONE. - ISSN 1932-6203. - 15:12(2020), pp. 1-19. [10.1371/journal.pone.0242958]

False-negative results of initial RT-PCR assays for COVID-19: A systematic review

Rutjes, Anne W
Writing – Review & Editing
;
2020-01-01

Abstract

BackgroundA 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.MethodsWe 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 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsThere is 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 (very low certainty of evidence).Systematic review registrationProtocol available on the OSF website: .https://tinyurl.com/vvbgqya.
15
12
1
19
False-negative results of initial RT-PCR assays for COVID-19: A systematic review / Arevalo-Rodriguez, Ingrid; Buitrago-Garcia, Diana; Simancas-Racines, Daniel; Zambrano-Achig, Paula; Del Campo, Rosa; Ciapponi, Agustin; Sued, Omar; Martinez-García, Laura; Rutjes, Anne W; Low, Nicola; Bossuyt, Patrick M; Perez-Molina, Jose A; Zamora, Javier. - In: PLOS ONE. - ISSN 1932-6203. - 15:12(2020), pp. 1-19. [10.1371/journal.pone.0242958]
Arevalo-Rodriguez, Ingrid; Buitrago-Garcia, Diana; Simancas-Racines, Daniel; Zambrano-Achig, Paula; Del Campo, Rosa; Ciapponi, Agustin; Sued, Omar; Martinez-García, Laura; Rutjes, Anne W; Low, Nicola; Bossuyt, Patrick M; Perez-Molina, Jose A; Zamora, Javier
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
fncovid19.pdf

Open access

Tipologia: Versione pubblicata dall'editore
Dimensione 1.02 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.02 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Licenza Creative Commons
I metadati presenti in IRIS UNIMORE sono rilasciati con licenza Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal, mentre i file delle pubblicazioni sono rilasciati con licenza Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale (CC BY 4.0), salvo diversa indicazione.
In caso di violazione di copyright, contattare Supporto Iris

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11380/1292480
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 330
  • Scopus 301
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 317
social impact