PCR Testing in the UK During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic - Evidence from FOI Requests
Jefferson, T.; Dietrich, M.; Brassey, J.; Heneghan, C.
Show abstract
Polymerase Chain Reaction ("PCR") tests have been used to identify cases of COVID-19 during the course of the pandemic. Notably, PCR alone cannot differentiate between the presence of whole viruses (which can be transmitted and infect individuals) and small fragments of genetic material that are not infectious. A feature of PCR known as the cycle threshold (Ct) can be used to discriminate between these states, but the relationship between Ct and infectiousness is still poorly understood. This well-known limitation of the test compromises the identification of cases and their trends, and consequently those measures to interrupt transmission (such as isolation) that are undertaken on the basis of reliably identifying infectious individuals. Here, we interrogate the public authorities understanding of PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 in the UK by accessing Freedom of Information requests submitted in 2020-21.We searched WhatDoTheyKnow and found 300 FOI requests, from over 150 individuals. We grouped their questions into four themes addressing the number of tests in use, the reporting of cycle thresholds ( Ct), the Ct values themselves, and the accuracy of tests. The number of validated tests in use in the UK is currently not clear: In FOI responses, Public Health England (PHE) report it may be "80" or "85". However, European regulations suggest there could be over 400 different CE marked tests available on the market and available for use. Laboratories have a statutory duty to report positive cases to PHE, but they do not have to advise which tests they are using nor submit Ct values. Only two FOI responses provided answers on Ct values, indicating that in a set time span, 24-38% of the Ct values were over 30. The most common FOI asked if there was a cycle threshold for positivity. In those that responded, the Ct for a positive result varied from 30 to 45. We found limited information on the technical accuracy of the tests. Several responses stated there is no static, specific or standard cycle threshold. The current system requires significant changes to ensure it offers accurate diagnostic data to enable effective clinical management of SARS-CoV-2. PCR is an important and powerful tool, but its systematic misuse and misreporting risk undermining its usefulness and credibility.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Perceptions on undertaking regular asymptomatic self-testing for COVID-19 using lateral flow tests: A qualitative study of university students and staff 92%
- COVID-19 outbreak rates and infection attack rates associated with the workplace: a descriptive epidemiological study 92%
- Meta-Analysis of Robustness of COVID-19 Diagnostic Kits During Early Pandemic 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Scoping Review of the Experience of Implementing Population Testing for SARS-CoV-2 93%
- Public health information on COVID-19 for international travellers: Lessons learned from a rapid mixed-method evaluation in the UK containment phase 90%
- Validation of a Difference-in-Differences Investigation Tool (DiD IT) for quantifying local outbreaks 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- A prospective diagnostic evaluation of accuracy of self-taken and healthcare worker-taken swabs for rapid COVID-19 testing 93%
- Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Point of Care Devices in the Laboratory and Clinical Setting 93%
- Performance Evaluation Of A SARS-COV-2 Rapid Antigentest: Test Performance In The Community In The Netherlands 93%
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. 90%
- Impact of baseline cases of cough and fever on UK COVID-19 diagnostic testing rates: estimates from the Bug Watch community cohort study 90%
- SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Lateral Flow Assay for antibody prevalence studies following vaccine roll out: a Diagnostic Accuracy Study 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Is my cough a cold or covid? A qualitative study of COVID-19 symptom recognition and attitudes towards testing in the UK 91%
- Agility and sustainability: A qualitative evaluation of COVID-19 Non-pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) in the UK logistics sector 89%
- Bigger and Better? Representativeness of the Influenza A surveillance using one consolidated clinical microbiology laboratory data set as compared to the Belgian Sentinel Network of Laboratories 88%
"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.