2020
DOI: 10.31005/iajmh.v3i0.90
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Perspectiva de resultados falso-negativos no teste de RT-PCR quando realizado tardiamente para o diagnóstico de covid-19

Abstract: O surto ocasionado pelo SARS-CoV-2, responsável pela doença denominada de covid-19, foi relatada pela primeira vez em dezembro de 2019 em Wuhan, na China e atualmente é considerada um problema de saúde pública global. Até o momento, o teste considerado padrão-ouro para o diagnóstico final da covid-19 é a reação em cadeia da polimerase com transcrição reversa (RT-PCR). No entanto, é possível observar que diversas publicações destacam a possibilidade de falso-negativos no teste de RT-PCR. Entretanto, até à prese… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 8 publications
(10 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A study warns of the negative results of this exam, scoring the range of viral levels in COVID-19 and the ideal time to perform the collection of the material. Scholars point out that laboratory errors, precision of the test, co-infection and the oscillation of the viral load can interfere in the final result (35) . Any adverse event, error or incident in the collection of this exam may cause risk situations for several recipients.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A study warns of the negative results of this exam, scoring the range of viral levels in COVID-19 and the ideal time to perform the collection of the material. Scholars point out that laboratory errors, precision of the test, co-infection and the oscillation of the viral load can interfere in the final result (35) . Any adverse event, error or incident in the collection of this exam may cause risk situations for several recipients.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%