ArticleEClinicalMedicine2020
Twelve out of 117 recovered COVID-19 patients retest positive in a single-center study of China.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Is recurrence possible in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? Case series and systematic review of literature.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2021Pooled it
- Defining the Critical Requisites for Accurate Simulation of SARS-CoV-2 Viral Dynamics: Patient Characteristics and Data Collection Protocol.Journal of medical virology · 2025Article
- Predicting COVID-19 Re-Positive Cases in Malnourished Older Adults: A Clinical Model Development and Validation.Clinical interventions in aging · 2024Article
- Article
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of discharged COVID-19 patients retesting positive for RT-PCR.EClinicalMedicine · 2021Article
- Recurrence of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in recovered COVID-19 patients: a narrative review.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2021Review
- More Caution Needed for Patients Recovered From COVID-19.Frontiers in public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt has been reported that a fraction of recovered coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19) patients have retested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Clinical characteristics and risk factors for retesting positive have not been studied extensively.
methodsIn this retrospective, single-center cohort study, we included adult patients (≥ 18 years old) diagnosed as COVID-19 in Affiliated Yueqing Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, Zhejiang, China. All the patients were discharged before March 31, 2020, and were re-tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) after meeting the discharge criteria. We retrospectively analyzed this cohort of 117 discharged patients and analyzed the differences between retest positive and negative patients in terms of demographics, clinical characteristics, laboratory findings, chest computed tomography (CT) features and treatment procedures.
findingsCompared with the negative group, the positive group had a higher proportion of patients with comorbidities (Odds Ratio(OR) =2·12, 95% Confidence Interval(CI) 0·48-9·46;
interpretationPatients with COVID-19 who met discharge criteria could still test positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Longer hospital stay and lymphopenia could be potential risk factors for positive SARS-CoV-2 retest in COVID-19 patients after hospital discharge.
fundingNatural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province, Medical Scientific Research Fund of Zhejiang Province, Wenzhou science and technology project.
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.