RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 The performance of the SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test as a tool for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection in the population: A survey of routine laboratory RT-PCR test results from the region of Münster, Germany
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.05.06.21256289
DO 10.1101/2021.05.06.21256289
A1 Stang, Andreas
A1 Robers, Johannes
A1 Schonert, Birte
A1 Jöckel, Karl-Heinz
A1 Spelsberg, Angela
A1 Keil, Ulrich
A1 Cullen, Paul
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/11/2021.05.06.21256289.abstract
AB Objectives To evaluate the population-based performance of the SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test as a tool for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection during the pandemic in 2020.Methods We analysed SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR results of 162,457 people living in Münster, Germany screened at nursing homes, testing sites, at schools, regional hospitals, and by general practitioners. All PCRs were done with the same cobas SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR system (Roche Diagnostics). We stratified positive RT-PCR results by cycle threshold (Ct) values, periods of the national test strategy, age, sex, and symptoms.Results Among 162,457 individuals, 4164 (2.6%) had a positive RT-PCR test result, defined as Ct<40. Depending on the national test strategy, higher positive rates were associated with testing predominantly symptomatic people. Children (0-9 years) and older adults (70+ years). Only 40.6% of test positives showed low Ct values < 25 (potentially infectious). The percentage of Ct values below 25 was lower among children (0-9), adolescents (10-19), and among the elderly (70+ years).Conclusions RT-PCR testing as a tool for mass screening should not be used alone as a base for pandemic decision making including measures such as quarantine, isolation, and lockdown.Competing Interest StatementPaul Cullen has received speakers fees from Roche Diagnostics. None of the other authors declares any conflict of interest.Funding Statementnot applicableAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Duisburg-EssenAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAnonymised data are available on reasonable request and can be provided by the corresponding author.