ReviewCureus2024
Strategies to Overcome Erroneous Outcomes in Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) Testing: Insights From the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Review in Cureus, 2024. 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Monkeypox (Mpox), a Resurging Global Public Health Concern: An Updated Outlook Through 2025.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Review
- Detection of ongoing asymptomaticFrontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Practical Challenges in the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Children.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test to detect SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing COVID-19, has been regarded as the diagnostic gold standard. However, the excessive sensitivity of RT-PCR may cause false-positive outcomes from contamination. Again, its technical complexity increases the chances of false-negatives due to pre-analytical and analytical errors. This narrative review explores the elements contributing to inaccurate results during the COVID-19 pandemic and offers strategies to minimize these errors. False-positive results may occur due to specimen contamination, non-specific primer binding, residual viral RNA, and false-negatives, which may arise from improper sampling, timing, labeling, storage, low viral loads, mutations, and faulty test kits. Proposed mitigation strategies to enhance the accuracy of RT-PCR testing include comprehensive staff training in specimen collection, optimizing the timing of tests, analyzing multiple gene targets, incorporating clinical findings, workflow automation, and implementing stringent contamination control measures. Identifying and rectifying sources of error in RT-PCR diagnosis through quality control and standardized protocols is imperative for ensuring quality patient care and effective epidemic control.
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.