A case of SARS-CoV-2 carrier for 32 days with several times false negative nucleic acid tests
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
In 2019, a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) was first discovered in Wuhan, Hubei, China, causing severe respiratory disease in humans, and has been identified as a public health emergency of international concern. With the spread of the virus, there are more and more false negative cases of RT-PCR nucleic acid detection in the early stage of potential infection. In this paper, we collected the epidemiological history, clinical manifestations, outcomes, laboratory results and images of a SARS-CoV-2 carrier with no significant past medical history. The patient was quarantined because of her colleague had been diagnosed. After the onset of clinical symptoms, chest CT results showed patchy ground-glass opacity (GGO) in her lungs, but it took a total of nine nucleic acid tests to confirm the diagnosis, among which the first eight RT-PCR results were negative or single-target positive. In addition to coughing up phlegm during her stay in the hospital, she did not develop chills, fever, abdominal pain, diarrhea and other clinical symptoms. Since initial antiviral treatment, the lung lesions were absorbed. But the sputum nucleic acid test was still positive. In combination with antiviral and immune therapy, the patient tested negative for the virus. Notably, SARS-CoV-2 was detected only in the lower respiratory tract samples (sputum) throughout the diagnosis and treatment period. This is a confirmed case of SARS-CoV-2 infection with common symptoms, and her diagnosis has undergone multiple false negatives, suggesting that it is difficult to identify certain carriers of the virus and that such patients may also increase the spread of the SARS-CoV-2.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.03.31.20045401: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.03.31.20045401: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.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.
-
-