Critical Questions when Interpreting Coronavirus PCR Diagnostics

  1. Jürgen Durner
  2. Siegfried Burggraf
  3. Ludwig Czibere
  4. Tobias Fleige
  5. Michael Spannagel
  6. David C Watts
  7. Marc Becker

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The results of PCR measurements are regarded as unquestionable. This statement must be put into perspective. This relativization is particularly important in connection with the interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 results. Members of the critical infrastructure, such as nurses, may be quarantined although this is not necessary and are therefore missing from patient care. With our small but impressive comparison of methods and transport media for SARS-CoV-2, we not only show the different sensitivity of common routine systems and media in laboratory medicine. Further, we would like to inform clinically working physicians, who are not familiar with the technical weaknesses of the PCR investigation, about gaps and present solutions for their daily work.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.11.20127241: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot 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.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.11.20127241v1 on medRxiv