scholarly journals Suboptimal Biological Sampling as a Probable Cause of False-Negative COVID-19 Diagnostic Test Results

2020 ◽  
Vol 222 (6) ◽  
pp. 899-902 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie N Kinloch ◽  
Gordon Ritchie ◽  
Chanson J Brumme ◽  
Winnie Dong ◽  
Weiyan Dong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Public Health Response ◽  
Human Dna ◽  
Health Response ◽  
Proper Training ◽  
Biological Sampling ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Digital Polymerase Chain Reaction

Abstract False-negative severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 test results can negatively impact the clinical and public health response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We used droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) to demonstrate that human DNA levels, a stable molecular marker of sampling quality, were significantly lower in samples from 40 confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases that yielded negative diagnostic test results (ie, suspected false-negative test results) compared with a representative pool of 87 specimens submitted for COVID-19 testing. Our results support suboptimal biological sampling as a contributor to false-negative COVID-19 test results and underscore the importance of proper training and technique in the collection of nasopharyngeal specimens.

scholarly journals Suboptimal biological sampling as a probable cause of false-negative COVID-19 diagnostic test results

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie N. Kinloch ◽  
Gordon Ritchie ◽  
Chanson J. Brumme ◽  
Winnie Dong ◽  
Weiyan Dong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Marker ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Test Results ◽  
False Negatives ◽  
Human Dna ◽  
Biological Sampling

AbstractImproper nasopharyngeal swab collection could contribute to false-negative COVID-19 results. In support of this, specimens from confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases that tested negative or indeterminate (i.e. suspected false-negatives) contained less human DNA (a stable molecular marker of sampling quality) compared to a representative pool of specimens submitted for testing.

scholarly journals Corrigendum to: Suboptimal Biological Sampling as a Probable Cause of False-Negative COVID-19 Diagnostic Test Results

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie N Kinloch ◽  
Gordon Ritchie ◽  
Chanson J Brumme ◽  
Winnie Dong ◽  
Weiyan Dong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Biological Sampling

scholarly journals Digital Droplet PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Resolves Borderline Cases

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Xu ◽  
Timothy Kirtek ◽  
Yan Xu ◽  
Hui Zheng ◽  
Huiyu Yao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
Limit Of Detection ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Accurate Method ◽  
Viral Envelope ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Borderline Cases ◽  
Droplet Pcr ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Digital Polymerase Chain Reaction

Abstract Objectives The Bio-Rad SARS-CoV-2 ddPCR Kit (Bio-Rad Laboratories) was the first droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) assay to receive Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization approval, but it has not been evaluated clinically. We describe the performance of ddPCR—in particular, its ability to confirm weak-positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) results. Methods We clinically validated the Bio-Rad Triplex Probe ddPCR Assay. The limit of detection was determined by using serial dilutions of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in an artificial viral envelope. The ddPCR assay was performed according to the manufacturer’s specifications on specimens confirmed to be positive (n = 48) or negative (n = 30) by an FDA-validated reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction assay on the m2000 RealTime system (Abbott). Ten borderline positive cases were also evaluated. Results The limit of detection was 50 copies/mL (19 of 20 positive). Forty-seven specimens spanning a range of quantification cycles (2.9-25.9 cycle numbers) were positive by this assay (47 of 48; 97.9% positive precent agreement), and 30 negative samples were confirmed as negative (30 of 30; 100% negative percent agreement). Nine of 10 borderline cases were positive when tested in triplicate. Conclusions The ddPCR of SARS-CoV-2 is an accurate method, with superior sensitivity for viral RNA detection. It could provide definitive evaluation of borderline positive cases or suspected false-negative cases.

scholarly journals AI-Empowered Computational Examination of Chest Imaging for COVID-19 Treatment: A Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanqiu Deng ◽  
Xingyu Li
Keyword(s):  
False Negative ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Polymerase Chain Reaction Test ◽  
Test Results ◽  
First Case ◽  
Lung Scan ◽  
Screening Efficiency ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Chain Reaction Test ◽  
Full Swing

Since the first case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was discovered in December 2019, COVID-19 swiftly spread over the world. By the end of March 2021, more than 136 million patients have been infected. Since the second and third waves of the COVID-19 outbreak are in full swing, investigating effective and timely solutions for patients’ check-ups and treatment is important. Although the SARS-CoV-2 virus-specific reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test is recommended for the diagnosis of COVID-19, the test results are prone to be false negative in the early course of COVID-19 infection. To enhance the screening efficiency and accessibility, chest images captured via X-ray or computed tomography (CT) provide valuable information when evaluating patients with suspected COVID-19 infection. With advanced artificial intelligence (AI) techniques, AI-driven models training with lung scans emerge as quick diagnostic and screening tools for detecting COVID-19 infection in patients. In this article, we provide a comprehensive review of state-of-the-art AI-empowered methods for computational examination of COVID-19 patients with lung scans. In this regard, we searched for papers and preprints on bioRxiv, medRxiv, and arXiv published for the period from January 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021, using the keywords of COVID, lung scans, and AI. After the quality screening, 96 studies are included in this review. The reviewed studies were grouped into three categories based on their target application scenarios: automatic detection of coronavirus disease, infection segmentation, and severity assessment and prognosis prediction. The latest AI solutions to process and analyze chest images for COVID-19 treatment and their advantages and limitations are presented. In addition to reviewing the rapidly developing techniques, we also summarize publicly accessible lung scan image sets. The article ends with discussions of the challenges in current research and potential directions in designing effective computational solutions to fight against the COVID-19 pandemic in the future.

scholarly journals Haemophilus influenzae Serotype a (Hia) Carriage in a Small Alaska Community After a Cluster of Invasive Hia Disease, 2018

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leisha D Nolen ◽  
Amanda Tiffany ◽  
Carolynn DeByle ◽  
Dana Bruden ◽  
Gail Thompson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Haemophilus Influenzae ◽  
Prevalence Ratio ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Public Health Response ◽  
Serotype A ◽  
Household Level ◽  
Health Response ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Carriage Prevalence

Abstract Background Between May and July 2018, 4 Haemophilus influenzae serotype a (Hia) infections occurred in a remote Alaska community. We performed a public health response to prevent further illness and understand Hia carriage. Methods We collected oropharyngeal samples community-wide to evaluate baseline carriage. Risk factors were evaluated by interview. We offered prophylactic rifampin to individuals in contact with invasive Hia patients (contacts) and to all children aged <10 years. Oropharyngeal samples were collected again 8 weeks after rifampin distribution. Samples were tested using real-time polymerase chain reaction and culture. Results At baseline, 4 of 27 (14.8%) contacts and 7 of 364 (1.9%) noncontacts (P < .01) carried Hia. Contacts aged <10 years were more likely to carry Hia at any timepoint (11/18 [61%]) compared to contacts aged ≥10 years (3/34 [8.8%]), noncontacts aged <10 years (2/139 [1.4%]), and noncontacts ≥10 years (6/276 [2.2%]) (P < .001 for all). Hia carriers were clustered in 9 households (7% of total households). At the household level, carriage was associated with households with ≥1 contact (prevalence ratio [PR], 5.6 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.3–21.6]), crowding (PR, 7.7 [95% CI, 1.1–199.5]), and ≥3 tobacco users (PR, 5.0 [95% CI, 1.2–19.6]). Elevated carriage prevalence persisted in contacts compared to noncontacts 8 weeks after rifampin distribution (6/25 [24%] contacts, 2/114 [1.8%] noncontacts; P < .001). Conclusions Hia carriage prevalence was significantly higher among contacts than noncontacts. Rifampin prophylaxis did not result in a reduction of Hia carriage prevalence in this community.

scholarly journals Does Empirical Clostridium difficile Infection (CDI) Therapy Result in False-Negative CDI Diagnostic Test Results?

2013 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 494-500 ◽  
Author(s):  
Venkata C. K. Sunkesula ◽  
Sirisha Kundrapu ◽  
Christine Muganda ◽  
Ajay K. Sethi ◽  
Curtis J. Donskey
Keyword(s):  
Clostridium Difficile ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Clostridium Difficile Infection ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Therapy Result

scholarly journals An Online Calculator to Better Understand the Impact of False-Negative COVID-19 Polymerase Chain Reaction Test Results in the Context of Anesthesia Providers (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Runnels ◽  
John Frederick Pearson ◽  
Jon Dean Samuels ◽  
Rohan Kirit Panchamia
Keyword(s):  
False Negative ◽  
Polymerase Chain Reaction Test ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Anesthesia Providers ◽  
Reaction Test ◽  
Online Calculator ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Exposure Problem ◽  
Chain Reaction Test ◽  
The Impact

UNSTRUCTURED What does the COVID-19 false-negative exposure problem mean in the context of a local anesthesia practice? We present a customizable online calculator designed to quantify and better understand individual and aggregate provider exposure risk.

scholarly journals Diurnal variation in SARS-CoV-2 PCR test results: Test accuracy may vary by time of day

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Candace D. McNaughton ◽  
Nicholas M. Adams ◽  
Carl Hirschie Johnson ◽  
Michael J. Ward ◽  
Thomas A. Lasko
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Diurnal Variation ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Time Of Day ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Clinical Tests ◽  
Viral Shedding ◽  
Asymptomatic Patients ◽  
Polymerase Chain

AbstractFalse negative tests for SARS-CoV-2 are common and have important public health and medical implications. We tested the hypothesis that the proportion of positive SARS-CoV-2 real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests varied by time of day, suggesting variation in viral shedding by time of day. Among 30,000 clinical tests performed among symptomatic and asymptomatic patients in the Vanderbilt Affiliated Healthcare Network from March-June 2020, we found evidence for diurnal variation in the proportion of positive SARS-CoV-2 tests, with a peak around 2pm in the afternoon and 2-fold variation over the day. Variation was most pronounced in outpatient and inpatient testing locations. These findings have important implications for public health testing and vaccination strategies.

scholarly journals Public preferences for using quantitative faecal immunochemical test versus colonoscopy as diagnostic test for colorectal cancer: evidence from an online survey

BJGP Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. bjgpopen20X101007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian von Wagner ◽  
Wouter Verstraete ◽  
Yasemin Hirst ◽  
Brian D Nicholson ◽  
Sandro T Stoffel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Public Preferences ◽  
Faecal Immunochemical Test ◽  
Home Based ◽  
Immunochemical Test

BackgroundThere has been interest in using the non-invasive, home-based quantitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) to rule out colorectal cancer (CRC) in high-risk symptomatic patients.AimTo elicit public preferences for FIT versus colonoscopy (CC) and its delivery in primary care.Design & settingA cross-sectional online survey in England.MethodA total of 1057 adults (without CRC symptoms and diagnosis) aged 40–59 years were invited from an English online survey panel. Responders were asked to imagine they had been experiencing CRC symptoms that would qualify them for a diagnostic test. Participants were presented with choices between CC and FIT in ascending order of number of CRCs missed by FIT (from 1–10%). It was measured at what number of missed CRCs responders preferred CC over FIT.ResultsWhile 150 participants did not want either of the tests when both missed 1% CRCs, the majority (n = 741, 70.0%) preferred FIT to CC at that level of accuracy. However, this preference reduced to 427 (40.4%) when FIT missed one additional cancer. Women were more likely to tolerate missing CRC when using FIT. Having lower numeracy and perceiving a higher level of risk meant participants were less likely to tolerate a false negative test. Most of those who chose FIT preferred to return it by mail (62.2%), to be informed about normal test results by letter (42.1%), and about abnormal test results face to face (32.5%).ConclusionWhile the majority of participants preferred FIT over CC when both tests had the same sensitivity, tolerance for missed CRCs was low.

scholarly journals An Online Calculator to Better Understand the Impact of False-Negative COVID-19 Polymerase Chain Reaction Test Results in the Context of Anesthesia Providers

10.2196/26316 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. e26316
Author(s):  
Sean Runnels ◽  
John Frederick Pearson ◽  
Jon Dean Samuels ◽  
Rohan Kirit Panchamia
Keyword(s):  
False Negative ◽  
Polymerase Chain Reaction Test ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Anesthesia Providers ◽  
Reaction Test ◽  
Online Calculator ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Exposure Problem ◽  
Chain Reaction Test ◽  
The Impact

What does the COVID-19 false-negative exposure problem mean in the context of a local anesthesia practice? We present a customizable online calculator designed to quantify and better understand individual and aggregate provider exposure risk.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document