Insight into the practical performance of RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 using serological data: a cohort study

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.09.01.20182469: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Laboratory analyses: We assessed anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in participants’ serum using commercially available total Ab, IgG, and IgM ELISA assays that detect antibodies binding SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD), according to the manufacturer’s instruction (Beijing Wantai Biological Pharmacy Enterprise, Beijing
    anti-SARS-CoV-2
    suggested: None
    SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor binding domain ( RBD)
    suggested: None

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Even with these limitations, the serologic evidence suggests that the overall control program, which relied on RT-PCR to clear people from isolation or quarantine, was successful in containing the virus; as the rate of seropositivity outside of close-contacts was virtually zero. Those testing PCR-negative but seropositive were significantly less likely to have symptoms than those testing PCR-positive, potentially reflecting difficulties in appropriately timing virologic testing when there is no outward indication of the timing of viral shedding. Consistent with this latter point, we found considerable variation in the chance of an infected individual testing negative over the course of their infection. It may be that RT-PCR test results are correlated with transmissibility, but we were unable to assess that in this study. Strict quarantine practices were in place, requiring all close-contacts to be quarantined in centralized facilities for about 2 weeks after exposure. Critically, individuals remained in quarantine regardless of symptoms or test results. The vast majority (92·5%) of individuals who were seropositive, but PCR-negative, reported no symptoms. While this may stem from correlations between viral shedding and development of symptoms, it also may highlight a challenge in using virologic testing for asymptomatic surveillance. The period in which RT-PCR testing is highly sensitive is relatively short5,6, and sensitivity peaks around the time of, or shortly after, symp...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.