ArticleVirologica Sinica2020
Discrimination of False Negative Results in RT-PCR Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNAs in Clinical Specimens by Using an Internal Reference.
Article in Virologica Sinica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 18 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endogenous Biomarkers Analysis and False-Negative Results for SARSCov2 Using two Commercial RT-PCR Diagnostic Kits.Iranian journal of pathology · 2026Article
- Review
- Evaluation of a ddPCR Commercial Assay for the Absolute Quantification of the Monkeypox Virus West Africa in Clinical Samples.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Tailored Multiplex Real-Time RT-PCR with Species-Specific Internal Positive Controls for Detecting SARS-CoV-2 in Canine and Feline Clinical Samples.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- The correlation between IgM and IgG antibodies with blood profile in patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus.Clinical and molecular allergy : CMA · 2022Article
- Factors associated with weak positive SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis by reverse transcriptase-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR).Pathology · 2022Article
- Evaluation of theJournal of clinical virology plus · 2022Article
- Saliva-based point-of-care testing techniques for COVID-19 detection.Virologica Sinica · 2022Article
- New insights into the role of ribonuclease P protein subunit p30 from tumor to internal reference.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Using artificial intelligence technology to fight COVID-19: a review.Artificial intelligence review · 2022Article
- The estimated risk of SARS-CoV- 2 infection via cornea transplant in Canada.Cell and tissue banking · 2021Article
- Article
- Over 90% of clinical swabs used for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics contain sufficient nucleic acid concentrations.Journal of medical virology · 2021Article
- Head-to-Head Evaluation of Five Automated SARS-CoV-2 Serology Immunoassays in Various Prevalence Settings.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Recurrence of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in recovered COVID-19 patients: a narrative review.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2021Review
- Review
- The Main Molecular and Serological Methods for Diagnosing COVID-19: An Overview Based on the Literature.Viruses · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is an essential method for specific diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Unfortunately, false negative test results are often reported. In this study, we attempted to determine the principal causes leading to false negative results of RT-PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNAs in respiratory tract specimens. Multiple sputum and throat swab specimens from 161 confirmed COVID-19 patients were tested with a commercial fluorescent RT-PCR kit targeting the ORF1ab and N regions of SARS-CoV-2 genome. The RNA level of a cellular housekeeping gene ribonuclease P/MRP subunit p30 (RPP30) in these specimens was also assessed by RT-PCR. Data for a total of 1052 samples were retrospectively re-analyzed and a strong association between positive results in SARS-CoV-2 RNA tests and high level of RPP30 RNA in respiratory tract specimens was revealed. By using the ROC-AUC analysis, we identified Ct cutoff values for RPP30 RT-PCR which predicted false negative results for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR with high sensitivity (95.03%-95.26%) and specificity (83.72%-98.55%) for respective combination of specimen type and amplification reaction. Using these Ct cutoff values, false negative results could be reliably identified. Therefore, the presence of cellular materials, likely infected host cells, are essential for correct SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection by RT-PCR in patient specimens. RPP30 could serve as an indicator for cellular content, or a surrogate indicator for specimen quality. In addition, our results demonstrated that false negativity accounted for a vast majority of contradicting results in SARS-CoV-2 RNA test by RT-PCR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.