Background: A false-negative case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is defined as a person with suspected infection and an initial negative result by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, with a positive result on a subsequent test. False-negative cases have important implications for isolation and risk of transmission of infected people and for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to review and critically appraise evidence about the rate of RT-PCR false-negatives at initial testing for COVID-19.Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, as well as COVID-19 repositories, including the EPPI-Centre living systematic map of evidence about COVID-19 and the Coronavirus Open Access Project living evidence database. Two authors independently screened and selected studies according to the eligibility criteria and collected data from the included studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We calculated the proportion of false-negative test results using a multilevel mixed-effect logistic regression model. The certainty of the evidence about false-negative cases was rated using the GRADE approach for tests and strategies. All information in this article is current up to July 17, 2020.Results: We included 34 studies enrolling 12,057 COVID-19 confirmed cases. All studies were affected by several risks of bias and applicability concerns. The pooled estimate of false-negative proportion was highly affected by unexplained heterogeneity (tau-squared = 1.39; 90% prediction interval from 0.02 to 0.54). The certainty of the evidence was judged as very low due to the risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency issues.Conclusions: There is substantial and largely unexplained heterogeneity in the proportion of false-negative RT-PCR results. The collected evidence has several limitations, including risk of bias issues, high heterogeneity, and concerns about its applicability. Nonetheless, our findings reinforce the need for repeated testing in patients with suspicion of SARS-Cov-2 infection given that up to 54% of COVID-19 patients may have an initial false-negative RT-PCR (very low certainty of evidence).Systematic review registration: Protocol available on the OSF website:https://tinyurl.com/vvbgqya.

Background: A false-negative case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV- 2) infection is defined as a person with suspected infection and an initial negative result by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, with a positive result on a subsequent test. False-negative cases have important implications for isolation and risk of transmission of infected people and for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to review and critically appraise evidence about the rate of RT-PCR false-negatives at initial testing for COVID-19. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, as well as COVID-19 repositories including the EPPI-Centre living systematic map of evidence about COVID-19 and the Coronavirus Open Access Project living evidence database. Two authors independently screened and selected studies according to the eligibility criteria and collected data from the included studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We calculated the proportion of false-negative test results with the corresponding 95% CI using a multilevel mixed-effect logistic regression model. The certainty of the evidence about false- negative cases was rated using the GRADE approach for tests and strategies. All information in this article is current up to July 17, 2020. Results: We included 34 studies enrolling 12,057 COVID-19 confirmed cases. All studies were affected by several risks of bias and applicability concerns. The pooled estimate of false-negative proportion was highly affected by unexplained heterogeneity (tau-squared= 1.39; 90% prediction interval from 0.02 to 0.54). The certainty of the evidence was judged as very low, due to the risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency issues. Conclusions: There is a substantial and largely unexplained heterogeneity in the proportion of false-negative RT-PCR results. The collected evidence has several limitations, including risk of bias issues, high heterogeneity, and concerns about its applicability. Nonetheless, our findings reinforce the need for repeated testing in patients with suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection given that up to 54% of COVID-19 patients may have an initial false-negative RT-PCR (certainty of evidence: very low). An update of this review when additional studies become available is warranted. Systematic review registration: Protocol available on the OSF website: https://osf.io/gp38w/

Background: Diagnostic evidence of the accuracy of a test for identifying a target condition of interest can be estimated using systematic approaches following standardized methodologies. Statistical methods for the meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies are relatively complex, presenting a challenge for reviewers without extensive statistical expertise. In 2006, we developed Meta-DiSc, a free user-friendly software to perform test accuracy meta-analysis. This statistical program is now widely used for performing DTA meta-analyses. We aimed to build a new version of the Meta-DiSc software to include statistical methods based on hierarchical models and an enhanced web-based interface to improve user experience. Results: In this article, we present the updated version, Meta-DiSc 2.0, a web-based application developed using the R Shiny package. This new version implements recommended state-of-the-art statistical models to overcome the limitations of the statistical approaches included in the previous version. Meta-DiSc 2.0 performs statistical analyses of DTA reviews using a bivariate random effects model. The application offers a thorough analysis of heterogeneity, calculating logit variance estimates of sensitivity and specificity, the bivariate I-squared, the area of the 95% prediction ellipse, and the median odds ratios for sensitivity and specificity, and facilitating subgroup and meta-regression analyses. Furthermore, univariate random effects models can be applied to meta-analyses with few studies or with non-convergent bivariate models. The application interface has an intuitive design set out in four main menus: file upload; graphical description (forest and ROC plane plots); meta-analysis (pooling of sensitivity and specificity, estimation of likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratio, sROC curve); and summary of findings (impact of test through downstream consequences in a hypothetical population with a given prevalence). All computational algorithms have been validated in several real datasets by comparing results obtained with STATA/SAS and MetaDTA packages. Conclusion: We have developed and validated an updated version of the Meta-DiSc software that is more accessible and statistically sound. The web application is freely available at www.metadisc.es.