Polymerase Chain Reaction ("PCR") tests have been used to identify cases of COVID-19 during the course of the pandemic. Notably, PCR alone cannot differentiate between the presence of whole viruses (which can be transmitted and infect individuals) and small fragments of genetic material that are not infectious. A feature of PCR known as the cycle threshold (Ct) can be used to discriminate between these states, but the relationship between Ct and infectiousness is still poorly understood. This well-known limitation of the test compromises the identification of cases and their trends, and consequently those measures to interrupt transmission (such as isolation) that are undertaken on the basis of reliably identifying infectious individuals. Here, we interrogate the public authorities' understanding of PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 in the UK by accessing Freedom of Information requests submitted in 2020-21.We searched WhatDoTheyKnow and found 300 FOI requests, from over 150 individuals. We grouped their questions into four themes addressing the number of tests in use, the reporting of cycle thresholds ('Ct'), the Ct values themselves, and the accuracy of tests. The number of validated tests in use in the UK is currently not clear: In FOI responses, Public Health England (PHE) report it may be "80" or "85". However, European regulations suggest there could be over 400 different CE marked tests available on the market and available for use. Laboratories have a statutory duty to report positive cases to PHE, but they do not have to advise which tests they are using nor submit Ct values. Only two FOI responses provided answers on Ct values, indicating that in a set time span, 24-38% of the Ct values were over 30. The most common FOI asked if there was a cycle threshold for positivity. In those that responded, the Ct for a positive result varied from 30 to 45. We found limited information on the technical accuracy of the tests. Several responses stated there is no 'static', 'specific' or 'standard' cycle threshold. The current system requires significant changes to ensure it offers accurate diagnostic data to enable effective clinical management of SARS-CoV-2. PCR is an important and powerful tool, but its systematic misuse and misreporting risk undermining its usefulness and credibility.
- Downloaded 1,045 times
- Download rankings, all-time:
- Site-wide: 37,289
- In public and global health: 791
- Year to date:
- Site-wide: 3,078
- Since beginning of last month:
- Site-wide: 28,392
Downloads over time
Distribution of downloads per paper, site-wide
- 27 Nov 2020: The website and API now include results pulled from medRxiv as well as bioRxiv.
- 18 Dec 2019: We're pleased to announce PanLingua, a new tool that enables you to search for machine-translated bioRxiv preprints using more than 100 different languages.
- 21 May 2019: PLOS Biology has published a community page about Rxivist.org and its design.
- 10 May 2019: The paper analyzing the Rxivist dataset has been published at eLife.
- 1 Mar 2019: We now have summary statistics about bioRxiv downloads and submissions.
- 8 Feb 2019: Data from Altmetric is now available on the Rxivist details page for every preprint. Look for the "donut" under the download metrics.
- 30 Jan 2019: preLights has featured the Rxivist preprint and written about our findings.
- 22 Jan 2019: Nature just published an article about Rxivist and our data.
- 13 Jan 2019: The Rxivist preprint is live!