Back

Diagnostic accuracy of RT-PCR for detection of SARS-CoV-2 compared to a composite reference standard in hospitalized patients

Stefanovic, A.; Reich, N.; Lowe, C. F.; Puddicombe, D.; Matic, N.; Greiner, J.; Simons, J.; Leung, V.; Chu, T.; Naik, H.; Myles, N.; Burns, L.; Romney, M. G.; Ritchie, G.; Champagne, S.; Dooley, K.; Sekirov, I.

2021-02-22 infectious diseases
10.1101/2021.02.18.21252016 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundCOVID-19 caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has caused the greatest public health emergency of our time. Accurate laboratory detection of the virus is critical in order to contain the spread. Although real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has been the cornerstone of laboratory diagnosis, there have been conflicting reports on the diagnostic accuracy of this method. MethodsA retrospective review was performed on all hospitalized patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 (at St. Pauls Hospital in Vancouver, BC) from March 13 - April 12, 2020. Diagnostic accuracy of initial PCR on nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs was determined against a composite reference standard which included a clinical assessment of the likelihood of COVID-19 by medical experts, initial and repeat PCR, and post-hoc serological testing. ResultsA total of 323 patients were included in the study, 33 (10.2%) tested positive and 290 (89.8%) tested negative by initial PCR. Patients testing positive were more likely to exhibit features of cough (66.7% vs 39.3%), shortness of breath (63.6% vs 35.9%), fever (72.7% vs 27.6%), radiographic findings (83.3% vs 39.6%) and severe outcomes including ICU admission (24.2% vs 9.7%) and mortality (21.2% vs 6.2%) compared to patients testing negative. Serology was performed on 90 patients and correlation between serology and PCR was 98.9%. There were 90 patients included in the composite reference standard. Compared to the composite reference standard, initial PCR had sensitivity of 94.7% (95% CI 74.0 to 99.9%), specificity of 100% (95% CI 94.9 to 100%), positive predictive value of 100% (95% CI 81.5 to 100%) and a negative predictive value of 98.6% (95% CI 92.5 to 100%). DiscussionOur study showed high sensitivity of PCR on NP swab specimens when compared to composite reference standard in hospitalized patients. High correlation of PCR with serological testing further increased confidence in the diagnostic reliability of properly collected NP swabs.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.0%
2
Journal of Clinical Virology
62 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.9%
3
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.4%
4
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.4%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 33%
4.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
Journal of Medical Virology
137 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.7%
7
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
8
Journal of Medical Microbiology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
9
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
10
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.9%
11
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
12
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
13
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 57%
1.7%
14
Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
15
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
16
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
17
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
18
Journal of Virological Methods
36 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
19
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
20
Journal of Hospital Infection
27 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
21
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
22
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
23
EClinicalMedicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
24
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
25
Journal of Clinical Virology Plus
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.8%
26
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
27
Eurosurveillance
80 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
28
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
29
Virus Research
36 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
30
The Lancet Microbe
43 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%