ArticleThe Journal of infection2021
Sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RNA polymerase chain reaction using a clinical and radiological reference standard.
Article in The Journal of infection, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- When to test for COVID-19 using real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction: a systematic review.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2022Pooled it
- The Diagnostic Performance of Various Clinical Specimens for the Detection of COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis of RT-PCR Studies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Current tobacco use and COVID-19 diagnoses in a cohort of adult clients of public dental clinics in Sweden.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Swab and Sputum SARS-CoV-2 RNA-Negative, CT-Positive, Symptomatic Contacts of COVID-19 Cases: A Hypothesis-Generating Prospective Population-Based Cohort Study of Eight Clusters.Frontiers in medicine · 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
27 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesDiagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 are important for epidemiology, clinical management, and infection control. Limitations of oro-nasopharyngeal real-time PCR sensitivity have been described based on comparisons of single tests with repeated sampling. We assessed SARS-CoV-2 PCR clinical sensitivity using a clinical and radiological reference standard.
methodsBetween March-May 2020, 2060 patients underwent thoracic imaging and SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing. Imaging was independently double- or triple-reported (if discordance) by blinded radiologists according to radiological criteria for COVID-19. We excluded asymptomatic patients and those with alternative diagnoses that could explain imaging findings. Associations with PCR-positivity were assessed with binomial logistic regression.
results901 patients had possible/probable imaging features and clinical symptoms of COVID-19 and 429 patients met the clinical and radiological reference case definition. SARS-CoV-2 PCR sensitivity was 68% (95% confidence interval 64-73), was highest 7-8 days after symptom onset (78% (68-88)) and was lower among current smokers (adjusted odds ratio 0.23 (0.12-0.42) p < 0.001).
conclusionsIn patients with clinical and imaging features of COVID-19, PCR test sensitivity was 68%, and was lower among smokers; a finding that could explain observations of lower disease incidence and that warrants further validation. PCR tests should be interpreted considering imaging, symptom duration and smoking status.
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.