Responses

Original research
False-negative RT-PCR for COVID-19 and a diagnostic risk score: a retrospective cohort study among patients admitted to hospital
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Re: False-negative RT-PCR for COVID-19 and a diagnostic risk score: a retrospective cohort study among patients admitted to hospital
    • Paul Rooprai, Medical Student University of Ottawa, Department of Radiology
    • Other Contributors:
      • Marissa Absi, Medical Student
      • Nayaar Islam, MSc Epidemiology Candidate & Clinical Research Assistant
      • Sanam Ebrahimzadeh, Postdoctoral Fellow & Clinical Research Assistant
      • Matthew Mcinnes, Professor

    Dear Editor,

    The ‘Living’ Cochrane Systematic Review aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in people with suspected COVID-19 and is updated on a regular basis (1). The most recent version was published in March 2021 (2); it identified a significant increase in specificity of chest CT with a modest rise in sensitivity compared to the previous iterations. Our meta-analysis, which included 41 studies and 16,133 participants, found that the specificity of chest CT was 80.0% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 74.9-84.3), and the sensitivity was 87.9% (95% CI 84.6-90.6) (2). The improved specificity may be due to the adoption of stricter study inclusion criteria (2).

    We acknowledge Gupta-Wright et al. for their exceptional paper on the characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients with false-negative SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) and internal validation of a diagnostic risk score to predict risk of COVID-19 (3). The authors report that CT imaging of the lungs can lack specificity for diagnosis of COVID-19 in suspected cases (3). They cite the initial ‘Living’ Cochrane Systematic Review, published in September 2020, which identified that chest CT had a specificity of 18.1% (95% CI 3.71-55.8) and sensitivity of 86.2% (95% CI 71.9-93.8) (1). Research conducted earlier in the pandemic may have lacked the use of formal scoring systems (e.g., CO-RADS) to evaluate imaging tests, which offers a potential explanation for the low...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.