ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2020
Optimal Timing of Repeat Multiplex Molecular Testing for Respiratory Viruses.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Repeat multiplex PCR gastrointestinal panel testing within 14 days yields minimal additional diagnostic information: a multicenter cohort study.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2026Article
- Syndromic Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction (mPCR) Testing and Antimicrobial Stewardship: Current Practice and Future Directions.Current infectious disease reports · 2021Review
- Panels and Syndromic Testing in Clinical Microbiology.Clinics in laboratory medicine · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Determining whether and when multiplex nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for respiratory viruses should be repeated is difficult. We analyzed 5 years of results for a multiplex NAAT targeting 14 respiratory viruses, to determine how often repeat tests were ordered and the time period in which results were likely to change. Results for NAATs performed on nasopharyngeal specimens and repeated within 90 days after initial testing were analyzed. Logistic regression models were used to compare time periods between tests with respect to the odds of a change in the sample result. During the study period, 21,819 nasopharyngeal specimens from 16,779 individuals were submitted. Of these, 8,807 samples (40%) were positive for at least one viral pathogen. Among this cohort, 2,583 specimens (12%) collected from 1,473 patients (9%) were repeat tests performed within 90 days after an initial test. If repeated within 90 days, 71% of tests (1,833 tests) did not have a change in result. Initially negative tests typically remained negative, whereas initially positive tests mostly remained positive until 11 to 15 days. The odds of result change plateaued after 20 days. The odds of result change for tests repeated within 20 days were only 0.52 times the odds (95% confidence interval, 0.43 to 0.62) for those repeated at 21 to 90 days (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.