Repeated Testing Necessary: Assessing Negative Predictive Value of SARS-CoV-2 qPCR in a Population of Young Adults
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
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
-
-
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 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 10.1101/2021.03.10.21253292: (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.
-