Repeated Testing Necessary: Assessing Negative Predictive Value of SARS-CoV-2 qPCR in a Population of Young Adults

  1. Elaine E. Thompson
  2. Joseph H. Rosenthal
  3. James Wren
  4. Erik Seetao
  5. Niels H. Olson

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Determining when individuals should be released from quarantine is critical for successfully managing a COVID-19 outbreak and local protocols frequently call for testing during the quarantine period, generally after a reasonable incubation period, which raises a question about the interpretation of test results during the quarantine period. We report the negative predictive value of SARS-CoV-2 qPCR tests based on a retrospective longitudinal analysis of 5349 qPCR tests collected from 1227 US service members infected with COVID-19 aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) aircraft carrier. In our retrospective evaluation of recovering qPCR-positive quarantined crew members undergoing repeated testing, the negative predictive value is 80% for tests occurring as late as seven weeks following an initial positive qPCR test result. Repeated qPCR testing is necessary to ensure that a once-infected person is no longer shedding viral RNA. When deciding the stringency of exit criteria, we recommend considering local operational and community risk factors.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1101/2021.03.10.21253292v2 on medRxiv
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.10.21253292: (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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.03.10.21253292v1 on medRxiv