False negative results in COVID-19 testing are well recognised and frequently discussed. False positive results, while less common and less frequently discussed, still have several adverse implications, including potential exposure of a non-infected person to the virus in a cohorted area. Although false positive results are proportionally greater in low prevalence settings, the consequences are significant at all times and potentially of greater significance in high-prevalence settings. We evaluated COVID-19 results in one area during a period of low prevalence. The consequences of these results are discussed and implications for these results in both high and low prevalence settings are considered. We also provide recommendations to minimise the risk and impact of false-positive results.

When to sample It is inappropriate to swab all wounds: swabs should be taken only from overtly infected wounds and from wounds that are deteriorating, increasing in size, or failing to make satisfactory progress despite an optimal environment for wound healing. Indicators of wound infection include redness, swelling, purulent exudate, smell, pain, and systemic illness in the absence of other foci. Subtle signs of local wound infection include unhealthy “foamy” granulation tissue, contact bleeding, tissue breakdown, and epithelial bridging. Staphylococcus aureus Semiquantitative analysis of swab showing light or scanty, moderate, and heavy growth of Staphylococcus aureus Further reading Hasham S, Matteucci P, Stanley PR, Hart NB . Necrotising fasciitis. BMJ 2005; 330: 830–3. Weigelt J, Itani K, Stevens D, Lau W, Dryden M, Knirsch C, Linezolid CSSTI Study Group . Linezolid versus vancomycin in treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005; 49: 2260–6. Eron LJ, Lipsky BA, Low DE, Nathwani D, Tice AD, Volturo GA, Expert Panel on Managing Skin and Soft Tissue Infections . Managing skin and soft tissue infections: expert panel recommendations on key decision points. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003; 52 (suppl 1): i3–17. Bisno AL, Cockerill FR 3rd., Bermudez CT . The initial outpatient-physician encounter in group A streptococcal necrotizing fasciitis. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 31: 607–8.

An outbreak of Q fever occurred in South Wales, United Kingdom, from July 15 through September 30, 2002. To investigate the outbreak a cohort and nested case-control study of persons who had worked at a cardboard manufacturing plant was conducted. The cohort included 282 employees and subcontractors, of whom 253 (90%) provided blood samples and 214 (76%) completed questionnaires. Ninety-five cases of acute Q fever were identified. The epidemic curve and other data suggested an outbreak source likely occurred August 5–9, 2002. Employees in the factory’s offices were at greatest risk for infection (odds ratio 3.46; 95% confidence interval 1.38–9.06). The offices were undergoing renovation work around the time of likely exposure and contained straw board that had repeatedly been drilled. The outbreak may have been caused by aerosolization of Coxiella burnetii spore-like forms during drilling into contaminated straw board.

Background. Acute and chronic Q fever/Coxiella burnetii infection is diagnosed principally by serology. The management of patients who have serological evidence of chronic Q fever but no other manifestation of chronic infection is challenging. Methods. This paper describes a follow-up study of individuals 6 years after a point source outbreak. The study compares serological and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results between 3 international reference laboratories in a well-defined cohort of Q fever patients. Results. Concordance in microimmunofluorescence result interpretation from the 3 centers was only 35%. Australian and UK results had the greatest concordance and French and UK results the lowest. Serological testing revealed no chronic serological profiles when tested in either France or Australia but 10 when tested in the UK. Serological results from a patient with treated Q fever endocarditis suggested treated (France), chronic (UK), and borderline chronic (Australia) infection. PCR results on blood were universally negative. Conclusions. This study has shown that the results from Q fever micro-immunofluorescence vary according to the center in which they are carried out. This has implications for the interpretation of such tests, raises questions regarding the validity of using serological criteria alone as a means of diagnosing chronic Q fever, and affects the interpretation of epidemiological studies. We recommend that all results are interpreted according to the clinical picture and particular caution is applied in the interpretation of chronic serological profiles. In order to further our understanding of Q fever infection we propose that an international standard of Q fever serological investigation be developed.

The clinical false negative rate of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2 on a single upper respiratory tract sample was calculated using convalescent antibody testing as a comparator. The sensitivity in symptomatic individuals was 86.2% (25/29). Of the missed cases, one (3.5%) was detected by repeat RT-PCR, one by CT thorax and two (7.1%) by convalescent antibody. The clinical false negative rate of a single RT-PCR on an upper respiratory tract sample of 14% in symptomatic patients is reassuring when compared to early reports. This report supports a strategy of combining repeat swabbing, use of acute and convalescent antibody testing and CT thorax for COVID-19 diagnosis.