@diviacaroline No. That's what that person says to be the case.
If you use kit-based tests, that can be the issue. If you use in-house test there can be PCR product contamination from previous runs that could affect your clean mastermix area, extraction area or template loading area.
If you use kit-based tests, that can be the issue. If you use in-house test there can be PCR product contamination from previous runs that could affect your clean mastermix area, extraction area or template loading area.
@diviacaroline There are also some designs that can give "noise" which can look like late low positive when conditions favour that. There can be weird results when using duplex or triplex or multiplex test that don't show up when using uniplex formats.
@diviacaroline So it can be complex. When using kits rather than in-house tests, you hope that's all been sorted. But I'm seeing some examples where kits have come out with little validation (testing same sample types, samples from same sort of disease, (+) for other viruses) has yet to be done
@diviacaroline And then a rare event like a false positive, won't get noticed. Hopefully, that side of things will be better evaluated as others use kits and see anything strange and report it. And - if $$ and stocks allow, validate any kit against a reliable gold standard test
