ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2020
Improving Detection Efficiency of SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Testing.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detectability of Pathogenic RNA Virus Families in Different Body Sites: A Scoping Review.Viruses · 2026Article
- A cost-sensitive decision model for efficient pooled testing in mass surveillance of infectious diseases like COVID-19.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Development of rapid nucleic acid testing techniques for common respiratory infectious diseases in the Chinese population.Frontiers in chemistry · 2024Article
- A Simple Clinical Prediction Tool for COVID-19 in Primary Care with Epidemiology: Temperature-Leukocytes-CT Results.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2021Article
- Self-sampling versus health care professional-guided swab collection for SARS-CoV-2 testing.Infection · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing (NAT) has been routinely used for COVID-19 diagnosis during this pandemic; however, there have been concerns about its high false negative rate. We dissected its detection efficiency with a large COVID-19 cohort study. Methods: We analyzed SARS-CoV-2 NAT positive rates of 4,275 specimens from 532 COVID-19 patients in Sichuan Province with different disease severities, statuses, and stages, as well as different types and numbers of specimens. Results: The total positive rate of the 4,275 specimens was 37.5%. Among seven specimen types, BALF generated a 77.8% positive rate, followed by URT specimens (38.5%), sputum (39.8%), and feces/rectal swabs (34.1%). Specimens from critical cases generated a 43.4% positive rate, which was significantly higher than that of other severities. With specimens from patients at stable status, the SARS-CoV-2 positive rate was 40.6%, which was significantly higher than that of improved status (17.1%), but lower than that of aggravated status (61.5%). Notably, the positive rate of specimens from COVID-19 patients varied significantly from 85 to 95% during 3 days before and after symptom onset, to 20% at around 18 days after symptom onset. In addition, the detection rate increased from 72.1% after testing one throat swab, to 93.2% after testing three consecutive respiratory specimens from each patient. Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 NAT detection rates vary with patient disease severity and status, specimen type, number of specimens, and especially disease progression. Sampling as close to symptom onset as possible, and consecutively collecting more than one respiratory specimen could effectively improve SARS-CoV-2 NAT detection efficiency.
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.