Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:38, 5 December 2020

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 testing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 7 days

WikiProject COVID-19 consensus WikiProject COVID-19 aims to add to and build consensus for pages relating to COVID-19. They have so far discussed items listed below. Please discuss proposed improvements to them at the project talk page. General Superseded by TfD October 2020 and later practice - consult regular {{Current}} guidance. Refrain from using Worldometer (worldometers.info) as a source due to common errors being observed as noted on the Case Count Task Force common errors page. (April 2020, April 2020) For infoboxes on the main articles of countries, use Wuhan, Hubei, China for the origin parameter. (March 2020) "Social distancing" is generally preferred over "physical distancing". (April 2020, May 2020) Page title COVID-19 (full caps) is preferable in the body of all articles, and in the title of all articles/category pages/etc.(RM April 2020, including the main article itself, RM March 2021). SARS-CoV-2 (exact capitalisation and punctuation) is the common name of the virus and should be used for the main article's title, as well as in the body of all articles, and in the title of all other articles/category pages/etc. (June 2022, overturning April 2020) Map There is no consensus about which color schemes to use, but they should be consistent within articles as much as possible. There is agreement that there should be six levels of shading, plus gray   for areas with no instances or no data. (May 2020) There is no consensus about whether the legend, the date, and other elements should appear in the map image itself. (May 2020) For map legends, ranges should use fixed round numbers (as opposed to updating dynamically). There is no consensus on what base population to use for per capita maps. (May 2020) To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 testing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. COVID-19 High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine: Pulmonology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as Low-importance). An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Molecular Biology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disaster management Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Viruses Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Section sizes Section size for COVID-19 testing (60 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 8,178 8,178 Methods 2,895 70,222 Detection of the virus 1,289 34,163 Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test 21,691 21,691 Other molecular tests 1,745 1,745 Antigen tests 9,438 9,438 Antibody tests 7,358 17,608 Antibody Test Types 30 2,561 Rapid diagnostic test (RDT) 814 814 Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) 561 561 Neutralization assay 434 434 Chemiluminescent immunoassay 722 722 Neutralizing vis-à-vis binding antibodies 7,689 7,689 Other tests 19 15,556 Sniff tests 2,274 2,274 Imaging 8,173 8,173 Serology (CoLab score) tests 948 948 Breath tests 244 244 Animals 3,273 3,273 Functional assays 625 625 History 7,537 7,537 Testing protocols 25 24,869 Drive-through testing 1,978 1,978 Home collection 2,364 2,364 Pooled testing 8,060 8,060 Multi-tiered testing 702 702 Required volume 1,068 5,615 United States 4,547 4,547 Snapshot mass-testing 2,770 2,770 Surveillance and screening of populations 3,355 3,355 Available tests 259 13,773 Nucleic acid tests 3,174 3,174 Antigen tests 4,739 4,739 Serology (antibody) tests 5,601 5,601 Accuracy 2,025 15,500 Sensitivity and specificity 2,922 2,922 Causes of test error 902 902 PCR-based test 8,349 8,349 Isothermal nucleic amplification test 1,302 1,302 Confirmatory testing 2,100 2,100 National or regional responses 36 38,314 Iceland 629 629 India 77 77 Italy 691 691 Japan 15,022 15,022 Russia 1,252 1,252 Singapore 773 773 Slovakia 859 859 South Korea 10,463 10,463 Taiwan 2,185 2,185 United Arab Emirates 991 991 United States 70 5,336 New York State 2,899 2,899 USS Theodore Roosevelt 1,335 1,335 Nevada 1,032 1,032 Testing statistics by country 1,729 1,729 See also 279 279 References 188 188 Further reading 1,971 1,971 External links 461 461 Total 185,121 185,121

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 April 2020 and 10 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Elisawulfsberg (article contribs).

Update testing data for spain

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The last data stated on the table is from 8th september, but it does exist more update information on this webpage, under the name "Pruebas de laboratorio", which is a PDF file with the following information:

Updated the 17th september: - Total PCR: 8,582,722 - Fast Antibody test: 2,351,698 - Other Antibody: 886,085

Which makes a total of: 11,820,505

It would be great if someone could update this info.

--Viferico (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

 Already done -ink&fables «talk» 03:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Sensitivity and Specificity

(Minor note: This section in the article currently starts with "Accuracy is measured in terms of specificity and selectivity". Nowhere else in the article does the word "selectivity" appear again.. I assume this is an error, and it should actually read "specificity and sensitivity".) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.52.126.31 (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The article doesn't actually say any Covid-19 test's false negative and false positive rates (sensitivity and specificity) despite these being a test's most important features. It just talks about hypothetical rates and the Bayes's Rule problem of getting the posterior probability right.

Googling, it's very hard to find these numbers, despite their importance. Here is some material that might go in.

Fast, low-cost testing is essential for averting a second wave of Covid-19 by MENACHEM FROMER, PAUL VARGHESE, and ROBERT M. CALIFFSEPTEMBER 23, 2020 notes that Abbot Labs's 5-minute test has a 1.5% false positive rate (a 98.5% "specificity").

This is crucial information for the public. If a university is using that test, with its 1.5% false positive rate, or a similar one (and that is a reputable test from a big old respectable company), and is putting 1.5% of its students in quarantine as a result, telling them they have covid, but don't explain test error, students conclude that covid-19 is a harmless infection with no symptoms and no harm, that even precautions such as not coughing on your grandmother are unimportant, and that they will be immune since they had covid already. editeur24 (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Is the sensitivity and specificity section correct? From the "90% specific" example, the sensitivity and specificity article, and the references, it looks like 95% specificity means 95% of the 95 negatives are correctly identified, and for a PPV of 50% that would be 4.75% each of false and true positives from 100 tests, and sensitivity of 95% (or have I misunderstood?) The mention of "coin toss" should be removed, that would be expected to produce 50% positive. According to the source, the percentages after retesting are for 95% specificity, but 90% sensitivity for both tests (also that this is based on them being orthogonal, not just repeating the same test). Peter James (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

“Even relatively high sensitivity rates can produce high rates of false negatives in populations with low incidence rates.” from the sensitivity example seems incorrect. I believe that should read: “... with high incidence rates.” The higher the incidence, the more false negatives for a fixed sensitivity. Also, the statement misuses the term “rates of false negatives.” The rate would not change with population incidence. I believe it should read: “... high numbers of false negatives...” Would somebody with the ability to edit this please verify and change this sentence?

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This is regarding the Testing methods for COVID-19 that have been used widely. Also more information regarding the persistence of antibodies providing "immunity passports" to the recovered COVID-19 patients. Asiyazaidi (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -ink&fables «talk» 03:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The value for the number of tested cases in the Netherlands in table "COVID-19 testing statistics by country" need to be increased by 359,833.

Source: "Epidemiologische situatie COVID-19 in Nederland" (PDF). Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (in Dutch). 2 June 2020. Retrieved 25 October 2020.

Explanation: The number of tests (cases) done in the Netherlands currently in the "COVID-19 testing statistics by country" table are from the 1st of June onwards and is hence not complete. From the report on the 2nd of June (see link), the number of tests (cases) between the 9th of March until the 1st of June (when adding the numbers on page 19) were 359,833 and should be added to the current value.

The Source given is from the government agency which keeps track of the number of tests.

123reks4 (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done BJackJS talk 18:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

"External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results."

The study below addresses the problem of false positives on RTPCR test; perhaps something of the above should be reported in this article.

"External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results."

zenodo.org/record/4298004

cormandrostenreview.com

--5.170.117.113 (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class COVID-19 articles
• High-importance COVID-19 articles
• WikiProject COVID-19 articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• High-importance medicine articles
• B-Class pulmonology articles
• Low-importance pulmonology articles
• Pulmonology task force articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images of medical subjects
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• B-Class Molecular Biology articles
• Low-importance Molecular Biology articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images of molecular biology
• All WikiProject Molecular Biology pages
• B-Class Disaster management articles
• Low-importance Disaster management articles
• B-Class virus articles
• Low-importance virus articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images of viruses
• WikiProject Viruses articles