scholarly journals Evaluation of the diagnostic capacities for emerging arboviral diseases in the international network MediLabSecure from 2014 to 2018 - Importance of External Quality Assessments

Author(s):  
Guillain Mikaty ◽  
Séverine Mathéus ◽  
Oliver Donoso Mantke ◽  
Elaine McCulloch ◽  
Heinz Zeichhardt ◽  
...  
Vascular Cell ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mogens Vyberg ◽  
Søren Nielsen ◽  
Michael Bzorek ◽  
Rasmus Røge

2018 ◽  
Vol 73 (10) ◽  
pp. 2662-2666 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariane Deplano ◽  
Magali Dodémont ◽  
Olivier Denis ◽  
Henrik Westh ◽  
Heidi Gumpert ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 78 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane Descamps ◽  
Constance Delaugerre ◽  
Bernard Masquelier ◽  
Annick Ruffault ◽  
Anne-Geneviève Marcelin ◽  
...  

1994 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 1207-1211
Author(s):  
Per Hyltoft Petersen ◽  
N. A. Klitgaard ◽  
O. Blaabjerg

2014 ◽  
Vol 52 (12) ◽  
pp. 4381-4384 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Both ◽  
S. Neal ◽  
A. De Zoysa ◽  
G. Mann ◽  
I. Czumbel ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Andrew N. Cohen ◽  
Bruce Kessel

AbstractBackgroundLarge-scale testing for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR is a key element of the response to COVID-19, but little attention has been paid to the potential frequency and impacts of false positives.MethodsFrom a meta-analysis of external quality assessments of RT-PCR assays of RNA viruses, we derived a conservative estimate of the range of false positive rates that can reasonably be expected in SARS-CoV-2 testing, and analyzed the effect of such rates on analyses of regional test data and estimates of population prevalence and asymptomatic ratio.FindingsReview of external quality assessments revealed false positive rates of 0-16.7%, with an interquartile range of 0.8-4.0%. Such rates would have large impacts on test data when prevalence is low. Inclusion of such rates significantly alters four published analyses of population prevalence and asymptomatic ratio.InterpretationThe high false discovery rate that results, when prevalence is low, from false positive rates typical of RT-PCR assays of RNA viruses raises questions about the usefulness of mass testing; and indicates that across a broad range of likely prevalences, positive test results are more likely to be wrong than are negative results, contrary to public health advice about SARS-CoV-2 testing. There are myriad clinical and case management implications. Failure to appreciate the potential frequency of false positives and the consequent unreliability of positive test results across a range of scenarios could unnecessarily remove critical workers from service, expose uninfected individuals to greater risk of infection, delay or impede appropriate medical treatment, lead to inappropriate treatment, degrade patient care, waste personal protective equipment, waste human resources in unnecessary contact tracing, hinder the development of clinical improvements, and weaken clinical trials. Measures to raise awareness of false positives, reduce their frequency, and mitigate their effects should be considered.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document