Progression/remission of COVID-19: data-driven recommendations for repeating SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
This short study was performed to better understand the time frame associated with changes in SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing and provide recommendations for repeat testing. Recommendations are useful as little guidance is available for repeat testing in patients being followed expectantly for changes in disease.
Methods
A review of laboratory data of tests for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid was performed selecting patients who had changing results. Time between changes in test results was determined to provide guidance for repeat testing.
Results
The Interquartile Range (IQR) of data for patients who had a negative to positive change in laboratory testing (progression) was 6–16 days (median=9 days). The IQR of data for patients who had a positive to negative change in test results (remission) was 9–21 days (median=14 days).
Conclusion
Because sampling of the nares or nasopharynx can be variable, repeat testing should be performed swiftly when symptomatic patients are negative. The data in this short study vary widely, so authors recommend repeat testing during a period of time associated with the IQR or median (see results above).
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.16.20132001: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: This study was reviewed by our institutional review board and received exempt determination. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Figure 1 histogram was created with Microsoft Excel. Microsoft Excelsuggested: (Microsoft Excel, RRID:SCR_016137)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 …SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.16.20132001: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: This study was reviewed by our institutional review board and received exempt determination. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Figure 1 histogram was created with Microsoft Excel. Microsoft Excelsuggested: (Microsoft Excel, RRID:SCR_016137)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.
-
