Cargando…
Sensitivity of RT-PCR testing of upper respiratory tract samples for SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalised patients: a retrospective cohort study
Background: This study aimed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) testing of upper respiratory tract samples from hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), compared to the gold standard of a clinical diagnosis. Methods: All RT-PCR t...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
F1000 Research Limited
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8815009/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35169637 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16342.2 |
_version_ | 1784645192980103168 |
---|---|
author | Williams, Thomas C. Wastnedge, Elizabeth McAllister, Gina Bhatia, Ramya Cuschieri, Kate Kefala, Kallirroi Hamilton, Fiona Johannessen, Ingólfur Laurenson, Ian F. Shepherd, Jill Stewart, Alistair Waters, Donald Wise, Helen Templeton, Kate E. |
author_facet | Williams, Thomas C. Wastnedge, Elizabeth McAllister, Gina Bhatia, Ramya Cuschieri, Kate Kefala, Kallirroi Hamilton, Fiona Johannessen, Ingólfur Laurenson, Ian F. Shepherd, Jill Stewart, Alistair Waters, Donald Wise, Helen Templeton, Kate E. |
author_sort | Williams, Thomas C. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background: This study aimed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) testing of upper respiratory tract samples from hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), compared to the gold standard of a clinical diagnosis. Methods: All RT-PCR testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in NHS Lothian, Scotland, United Kingdom between the 7 (th) of February and 19 (th) April 2020 (inclusive) was reviewed, and hospitalised patients were identified. All upper respiratory tract 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 a negative RT-PCR test 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 a single upper respiratory tract RT-PCR for COVID-19 was 82.2% (95% confidence interval 79.0-85.1%). The sensitivity of two upper respiratory tract 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; this may be an underestimate of the value of further testing as the majority of patients 93.0% (2999/3226) only had one or two RT-PCR tests. Conclusions: The sensitivity of a single RT-PCR test of upper respiratory tract samples 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 RT-PCR despite repeat testing. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8815009 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | F1000 Research Limited |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88150092022-02-14 Sensitivity of RT-PCR testing of upper respiratory tract samples for SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalised patients: a retrospective cohort study Williams, Thomas C. Wastnedge, Elizabeth McAllister, Gina Bhatia, Ramya Cuschieri, Kate Kefala, Kallirroi Hamilton, Fiona Johannessen, Ingólfur Laurenson, Ian F. Shepherd, Jill Stewart, Alistair Waters, Donald Wise, Helen Templeton, Kate E. Wellcome Open Res Research Article Background: This study aimed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) testing of upper respiratory tract samples from hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), compared to the gold standard of a clinical diagnosis. Methods: All RT-PCR testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in NHS Lothian, Scotland, United Kingdom between the 7 (th) of February and 19 (th) April 2020 (inclusive) was reviewed, and hospitalised patients were identified. All upper respiratory tract 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 a negative RT-PCR test 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 a single upper respiratory tract RT-PCR for COVID-19 was 82.2% (95% confidence interval 79.0-85.1%). The sensitivity of two upper respiratory tract 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; this may be an underestimate of the value of further testing as the majority of patients 93.0% (2999/3226) only had one or two RT-PCR tests. Conclusions: The sensitivity of a single RT-PCR test of upper respiratory tract samples 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 RT-PCR despite repeat testing. F1000 Research Limited 2022-02-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8815009/ /pubmed/35169637 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16342.2 Text en Copyright: © 2022 Williams TC et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Williams, Thomas C. Wastnedge, Elizabeth McAllister, Gina Bhatia, Ramya Cuschieri, Kate Kefala, Kallirroi Hamilton, Fiona Johannessen, Ingólfur Laurenson, Ian F. Shepherd, Jill Stewart, Alistair Waters, Donald Wise, Helen Templeton, Kate E. Sensitivity of RT-PCR testing of upper respiratory tract samples for SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalised patients: a retrospective cohort study |
title | Sensitivity of RT-PCR testing of upper respiratory tract samples for SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalised patients: a retrospective cohort study |
title_full | Sensitivity of RT-PCR testing of upper respiratory tract samples for SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalised patients: a retrospective cohort study |
title_fullStr | Sensitivity of RT-PCR testing of upper respiratory tract samples for SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalised patients: a retrospective cohort study |
title_full_unstemmed | Sensitivity of RT-PCR testing of upper respiratory tract samples for SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalised patients: a retrospective cohort study |
title_short | Sensitivity of RT-PCR testing of upper respiratory tract samples for SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalised patients: a retrospective cohort study |
title_sort | sensitivity of rt-pcr testing of upper respiratory tract samples for sars-cov-2 in hospitalised patients: a retrospective cohort study |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8815009/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35169637 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16342.2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT williamsthomasc sensitivityofrtpcrtestingofupperrespiratorytractsamplesforsarscov2inhospitalisedpatientsaretrospectivecohortstudy AT wastnedgeelizabeth sensitivityofrtpcrtestingofupperrespiratorytractsamplesforsarscov2inhospitalisedpatientsaretrospectivecohortstudy AT mcallistergina sensitivityofrtpcrtestingofupperrespiratorytractsamplesforsarscov2inhospitalisedpatientsaretrospectivecohortstudy AT bhatiaramya sensitivityofrtpcrtestingofupperrespiratorytractsamplesforsarscov2inhospitalisedpatientsaretrospectivecohortstudy AT cuschierikate sensitivityofrtpcrtestingofupperrespiratorytractsamplesforsarscov2inhospitalisedpatientsaretrospectivecohortstudy AT kefalakallirroi sensitivityofrtpcrtestingofupperrespiratorytractsamplesforsarscov2inhospitalisedpatientsaretrospectivecohortstudy AT hamiltonfiona sensitivityofrtpcrtestingofupperrespiratorytractsamplesforsarscov2inhospitalisedpatientsaretrospectivecohortstudy AT johannesseningolfur sensitivityofrtpcrtestingofupperrespiratorytractsamplesforsarscov2inhospitalisedpatientsaretrospectivecohortstudy AT laurensonianf sensitivityofrtpcrtestingofupperrespiratorytractsamplesforsarscov2inhospitalisedpatientsaretrospectivecohortstudy AT shepherdjill sensitivityofrtpcrtestingofupperrespiratorytractsamplesforsarscov2inhospitalisedpatientsaretrospectivecohortstudy AT stewartalistair sensitivityofrtpcrtestingofupperrespiratorytractsamplesforsarscov2inhospitalisedpatientsaretrospectivecohortstudy AT watersdonald sensitivityofrtpcrtestingofupperrespiratorytractsamplesforsarscov2inhospitalisedpatientsaretrospectivecohortstudy AT wisehelen sensitivityofrtpcrtestingofupperrespiratorytractsamplesforsarscov2inhospitalisedpatientsaretrospectivecohortstudy AT templetonkatee sensitivityofrtpcrtestingofupperrespiratorytractsamplesforsarscov2inhospitalisedpatientsaretrospectivecohortstudy |