Diagnosing COVID-19 infection: the danger of over-reliance on positive test results
Cohen, A. N.; Kessel, B.; Milgroom, M. G.
Show abstract
Unlike previous epidemics, in addressing COVID-19 nearly all international health organizations and national health ministries have treated a single positive result from a PCR-based test as confirmation of infection, even in asymptomatic persons without any history of exposure. This is based on a widespread belief that positive results in these tests are highly reliable. However, data on PCR-based tests for similar viruses show that PCR-based testing produces enough false positive results to make positive results highly unreliable over a broad range of real-world scenarios. This has clinical and case management implications, and affects an array of epidemiological statistics, including the asymptomatic ratio, prevalence, and hospitalization and death rates. Steps should be taken to raise awareness of false positives, reduce their frequency, and mitigate their effects. In the interim, positive results in asymptomatic individuals that havent been confirmed by a second test should be considered suspect. Key messagesThe high specificities (usually 100%) reported in PCR-based tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection do not represent the real-world use of these tests, where contamination and human error produce significant rates of false positives. Widespread misunderstanding of these false positive rates affects an array of clinical, case management and health policy decisions. Similarly, health authorities guidance on interpreting test results is often wrong. Steps should be taken immediately to reduce the frequency and impacts of false positive results.
Matching journals
The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- An international, interlaboratory ring trial confirms the feasibility of an open-source, extraction-less “direct” RT-qPCR method for reliable detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in clinical samples 93%
- Performance comparison of the Maxim and Sedia Limiting Antigen Avidity assays for incidence surveillance 93%
- Performance Evaluation Of A SARS-COV-2 Rapid Antigentest: Test Performance In The Community In The Netherlands 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Performance of Repeat BinaxNOW SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Testing in a Community Setting, Wisconsin, November-December 2020 93%
- Antigen-based testing but not real-time PCR correlates with SARS-CoV-2 virus culture 92%
- Validity of self-testing at home with rapid SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection by lateral flow immunoassay 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Prevalence and determinants of serum antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in the general population of the Gardena Valley 91%
- RNA-extraction-free diagnostic method to detect SARS-CoV-2: an assessment from two States, India 90%
- Combining antibody markers for serosurveillance of SARS-CoV-2 to estimate seroprevalence and time-since-infection 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Limited specificity of serologic tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection, Benin, Western Africa. 94%
- Clinical evaluation of the Roche/SD Biosensor rapid antigen test with symptomatic, non-hospitalized patients in a municipal health service drive-through testing site 93%
- Diagnostic accuracy of three mpox lateral flow assays for antigen detection in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the United Kingdom 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Sensitivity of RT-PCR testing of upper respiratory tract samples for SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalised patients: a retrospective cohort study. 91%
- A Rapid Review and Meta-Analysis of the Asymptomatic Proportion of PCR-Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Infections in Community Settings 90%
- SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Lateral Flow Assay for antibody prevalence studies following vaccine roll out: a Diagnostic Accuracy Study 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.