Sensitivity of RT-PCR testing of upper respiratory tract samples for SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalised patients: a retrospective cohort study

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) testing of upper respiratory tract samples from hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), compared to the gold standard of a clinical diagnosis. Methods: All RT-PCR testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in NHS Lothian, Scotland, United Kingdom between the 7th of February and 19th April 2020 (inclusive) was reviewed, and hospitalised patients were identified. All upper respiratory tract RT-PCR tests were analysed for each patient to determine the sequence of negative and positive results. For those who were tested twice or more but never received a positive result, case records were reviewed, and a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 allocated based on clinical features, discharge diagnosis, and radiology and haematology results. For those who had a negative RT-PCR test but a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, respiratory samples were retested using a multiplex respiratory panel, a second SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay, and a human RNase P control. Results: Compared to the gold standard of a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, the sensitivity of a single upper respiratory tract RT-PCR for COVID-19 was 82.2% (95% confidence interval 79.0-85.1%). The sensitivity of two upper respiratory tract RT-PCR tests increased sensitivity to 90.6% (CI 88.0-92.7%). A further 2.2% and 0.9% of patients who received a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 were positive on a third and fourth test; this may be an underestimate of the value of further testing as the majority of patients 93.0% (2999/3226) only had one or two RT-PCR tests. Conclusions: The sensitivity of a single RT-PCR test of upper respiratory tract samples in hospitalised patients is 82.2%. Sensitivity increases to 90.6% when patients are tested twice. A proportion of cases with clinically defined COVID-19 never test positive on RT-PCR despite repeat testing.

Algorithmic Fairness and Bias Mitigation for Clinical Machine Learning: A New Utility for Deep Reinforcement Learning

“…This sensitivity was chosen to exceed the sensitivity of lateral flow device (LFD) tests, which achieved a sensitivity of 56.9% (95% confidence interval 51.7%-62.0%) for OUH admissions between December 23, 2021 and March 6, 2021 [22]. Additionally, the gold standard for diagnosing viral genome targets is by real-time PCR (RT-PCR), which has estimated sensitivities of approximately 80%-90% [29, 30]. Therefore, using a threshold of 0.9 will ensure that models can effectively detect COVID-19 positive cases, and exceed the sensitivities of current diagnostic testing methods.…”

Border Control for Infectious Respiratory Disease Pandemics: A Modelling Study for H1N1 and Four Strains of SARS-CoV-2

“…We note that the PCR sensitivity data used was that for SARS-CoV-2, having assumed that PCR's sensitivity for both viruses is similar. Evidence strongly supports PCR's high sensitivity for influenza A-H1N1 among symptomatic and hospitalized patients, whose viral loads tend to be higher [30], but particularly low viral loads may go undetected [31], as may be more common in asymptomatic cases.…”

Direct Detection of Viral Infections from Swab Samples by Probe‐Gated Silica Nanoparticle‐Based Lateral Flow Assay

“…Moreover, using the upper respiratory tract samples, the sensitivity of the RT-qPCR is reported to be around 82 % in one of the recent studies. [9] They also reported up to a 90 % increase in sensitivity when two consecutive tests were performed for the same individual subject. On the other hand, there are some limitations to performing RT-qPCR in practice, since the application of consecutive tests may not be practical due to the availability of the test kits in the diagnosis center, the cost of the detection tests, and the time needed for the process.…”