Improved RT-PCR SARS-Cov2 results interpretation by indirect determination of cut-off cycle threshold value
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Clinical laboratories of the developing world are overwhelmed with RT-PCR SARS-Cov2 testing demands. It is of paramount importance that each clinical laboratory use an appropriate cut-off value in the interpretation of SARS-Cov2 real-time RT–PCR results, which is specific to their laboratory performances as ISO 15189 recommendations stipulate. We applied an indirect statistical method to a large mixed data set of Ct values (ORF1ab and N) to estimate cut-off Ct value (∼32 cycles).we conclude that the use of indirect statistical approaches to estimate cut-off value in the interpretation of SARS-Cov2 real-time RT–PCR results may improve differential diagnosis of COVID-19 cases with low risk of infectivity, and may help to better estimates of the burden of COVID-19 disease.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.20.20235390: (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 10.1101/2020.11.20.20235390: (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.
-
