3 ms·
Hm, the numbers I've dug up (though rather hastily; I haven't read much of the documents) don't really match 2.3%... they seem to be 0% in their tests. Here [1]
by mehrdadn 6y ago
Hm, the numbers I've dug up (though rather hastily; I haven't read much of the documents) don't really match 2.3%... they seem to be 0% in their tests. Here [1] is where I think you can find the info for all the FDA-authorized tests. I see mentions of NPA (negative percent agreement) being 100% in their trials in [2] and [3] for example, though the sample sizes don't seem too large (something like 30-50). Any idea what I'm missing, or if it's just because of small sample sizes? (I'm not exactly trained in this, but my impression was PCR was more accurate than that.)
[1] https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/vitro-diagnostics-euas#individual-molecular https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019...
[2] https://www.fda.gov/media/141951/download https://www.fda.gov/media/141951/download
[3] https://www.fda.gov/media/141760/download https://www.fda.gov/media/141760/download
- nl 6y agoThis is really useful, since it's the first source that includes the Ct for each(?) test. Combine that with [1] which makes a good argument that some high Ct levels may be too sensitive. Just randomly looking, this test[2] approved in June uses the Ct of 40 which is criticised above. [1] https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/09/01/covid-tests https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/09/01/covid-tes... [2] https://www.fda.gov/media/139572/download https://www.fda.gov/media/139572/download