False Negative Rate of COVID-19 PCR Testing: A Discordant Testing Analysis
Open accessAbstract
Background: COVID-19 is diagnosed via detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA using real time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rtRT-PCR). Performance of many SARS-CoV-2 rtRT-PCR assays is not entirely known due to the lack of a gold standard. We sought to evaluate the false negative rate (FNR) and sensitivity of our laboratory-developed SARS-CoV-2 rtRT-PCR targeting the envelope (E) and RNA-dependent RNA-polymerase (RdRp) genes. Methods: SARS-CoV-2 rtRT-PCR results at the Public Health Laboratory (Alberta, Canada) from January 21 to April 18, 2020 were reviewed to identify patients with an initial negative rtRT-PCR followed by a positive result on repeat testing within 14 days (defined as discordant results). Negative samples from these discordant specimens were re-tested using three alternate rtRT-PCR assays (targeting the E gene and N1/N2 regions of the nucleocapsid genes) to assess for false negative (FN) results. Results: During the time period specified, 95,919 patients (100,001 samples) were tested for SARS-CoV-2. Of these, 49 patients were found to have discordant results including 49 positive and 52 negative swabs. Repeat testing of 52 negative swabs found five FNs (from five separate patients). Assuming 100% specificity of the diagnostic assay, the FNR and sensitivity in this group of patients with discordant testing was 9.3% (95% CI 1.5–17.0%) and 90.7% (95% CI 82.6–98.9%) respectively. Conclusions: Studies to understand the FNR of routinely used assays are important to confirm adequate clinical performance. In this study, most FN results were due to low amounts of SARS-CoV-2 virus concentrations in patients with multiple specimens collected during different stages of infection. Post-test clinical evaluation of each patient is advised to ensure that rtRT-PCR results are not the only factor in excluding COVID-19.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
COVID-19's tendency for false negatives often requires retesting, but the lack of recommended time intervals between tests in guidelines leads to potential diagnostic delays.
“Furthermore, the disease’s tendency for false negatives often requires retesting, but the lack of recommended time intervals between tests in the guidelines leads to potential diagnostic delays [158].”
From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [158]
The Background says false-negative SARS-CoV-2 results occur, guidance calls for repeat testing when symptoms persist, and the optimal interval is unclear. It does not say that guidelines lack recommended intervals or that this causes diagnostic delays. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 25 · Cited by 207
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- [1]Long DR Gombar S Hogan CA Greninger AL O'Reilly-Shah V Bryson-Cahn C Occurrence and timing of subsequent SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positivity among initially negative patients Clin Infect Dis 2020 10.1093/cid/ciaa722 33501950 PMC7314163 · DOI
- [5]Prinzi A. False negatives and reinfections: the challenges of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing. https://asm.org/Articles/2020/April/False-Negatives-and-Reinfections-the-Challenges-of. Accessed 5 July 2020.
- [18]Kanji JN Chichak V Sikora C Lee N Tipples G Zelyas N First hospitalized case of laboratory-confirmed coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Alberta, Canada Off J Assoc Med Microbiol Infect Dis Canada 2020 10.3138/jammi-2020-0012 PMC9602884 36338187 · DOI
- Authors
- Kanji, J. N., Zelyas, N., MacDonald, C., Pabbaraju, K., Khan, M. N., Prasad, A., Hu, J., Diggle, M., Berenger, B. M., & Tipples, G.
- Affiliations
- University of Alberta (CA)
- Vancouver Coastal Health (CA)
- Alberta Precision Laboratories (CA)
- Alberta Health Services (CA)
- University of Calgary (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Kanji, Jamil N.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Virology Journal
- Published
- 2021-01-09
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 13-13
- ISSN
- 1743-422X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7794619
- OpenAlex
- W3120038138
- Cited by
- 207
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 84 · 2021: 50
- FWCI
- 15.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Virology Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Libraries and Cultural Resources (University of Calgary) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
- Keywords
- COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2, false negative rate, discordant test results, retesting, env gene, RNA-dependent RNA polymerase gene, N gene, diagnostic assay performance, low viral load, infection stage
- MeSH terms
- COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Canada, False Negative Reactions, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Sensitivity and Specificity, Molecular Diagnostic Techniques, Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review