• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Clin Lab . Strategic Retesting to Reduce False Positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR Test Results

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Clin Lab


. 2024 May 1;70(5).
doi: 10.7754/Clin.Lab.2023.231214.
Strategic Retesting to Reduce False Positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR Test Results

Hirofumi Toda, Yuji Tanaka, Kenji Yamade, Kazue Yoshitomi, Koichiro Yoshida, Toshinori Kamisako
Abstract

Background: Nucleic acid amplification testing is the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics, although it may produce a certain number of false positive results. There has not been much published about the characteristics of false positive results. In this study, based on retesting, specimens that initially tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were classified as true or false positive groups to characterize the distribution of cycle threshold (CT) values for N1 and N2 targets and number of targets detected for each group.
Methods: Specimens that were positive for N-gene on retesting and accompanied with S-gene were identified as true positives (true positive based on retesting, rTP), while specimens that retested negative were classified as false positives (false positive based on retesting, rFP).
Results: Of the specimens retested, 85/127 (66.9%) were rFP, 16/47 (34.0%) specimens with both N1 and N2 targets initially detected were rFP, and the CT values for each target was higher in rFP than in rTP. ROC curve analysis showed that optimal cutoff values of CT to differentiate between rTP and rFP were 34.8 for N1 and 33.0 for N2. With the optimal cutoff values of CT for each target, out of the 24 specimens that were positive for both N1 and N2 targets and classified as rTP, 23 (95.8%) were correctly identified as true positives. rFP specimens had a single N1 target in 52/61 (85.2%) and a single N2 target in 17/19 (89.5%). Notably, no true positive results were obtained from any specimens with only N2 target detected.
Conclusions: These results suggest that retesting should be performed for positive results with a CT value greater than optimal cutoff value for each target or with a single N1 target amplified, considering the possibility of a false positive. This may provide guidance on indications to perform retesting to minimize the number of false positives.


 
Back
Top Bottom