SynthesisPloS one2020
False-negative results of initial RT-PCR assays for COVID-19: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 458 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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.
Evaluation of the Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning-Based Diagnostic Software as a Medical Device Using Forced Cough Vocalization Signal Data Signatures in the Diagnosis of COVID-19 Illness
Evaluation of the Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning-Based Diagnostic Software as a Medical Device Using Forced Cough Vocalization Signal Data Signatures in the Diagnosis of COVID-19 Illness: A Prospective, Two-Arm Non-Inferiority Clinical Validation Trial of AudibleHealth Dx Software as a Medical Device (EUA-US)
Who cites it
458 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 693 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Laboratory-based molecular test alternatives to RT-PCR for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- The potential of circulating microRNAs as novel diagnostic biomarkers of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Pooled it
- Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Evaluation of Diagnostic Strategies for Identifying SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Clinical Practice: a Systematic Review and Compliance with the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Guideline (STARD).Microbiology spectrum · 2022Pooled it
- Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- The diagnostic performance of lung ultrasound for detecting COVID-19 in emergency departments: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU · 2022Pooled it
- The importance of fecal nucleic acid detection in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19): A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of medical virology · 2022Pooled it
- Clinical prediction models for diagnosis of COVID-19 among adult patients: a validation and agreement study.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Pooled it
- Serum ferritin as a predictive biomarker in COVID-19. A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis.Journal of critical care · 2022Pooled it
- Estimate false-negative RT-PCR rates for SARS-CoV-2. A systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of clinical investigation · 2022Pooled it
- An Umbrella Review With Meta-Analysis of Chest Computed Tomography for Diagnosis of COVID-19: Considerations for Trauma Patient Management.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Epidemiologic characteristics of cases with reinfection, recurrence, and hospital readmission due to COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of medical virology · 2022Pooled it
- Oral mouthwashes for asymptomatic to mildly symptomatic adults with COVID-19 and salivary viral load: a randomized, placebo-controlled, open-label clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2024Trial
- Evaluation of Universal Biomolecular Medium for Molecular Detection of Respiratory Viruses: A Paired, Multi-Platform Comparison.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Performance Evaluation of Nasopharyngeal Swab Pooling to Improve SARS-CoV-2 Testing Capacity via Closed Real-Time RT‒PCR Assays.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
- RBM15 is a novel prognostic biomarker and correlates with immune cell infiltration in lung adenocarcinoma.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Article
- A policy roadmap for sustainable mass-testing.Health affairs scholar · 2025Article
- A Symptom-Based Algorithm for Rapid Clinical Diagnosis of COVID-19 in Adults With High-Risk Exposure.Cureus · 2025Article
398 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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 REGISTRATION: Protocol available on the OSF website: https://tinyurl.com/vvbgqya.
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.