Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33113040›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2021

Recurrence of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in recovered COVID-19 patients: a narrative review.

Thi Loi Dao, Van Thuan Hoang, Philippe Gautret

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

77 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Observational
  10. When to resume antitumor therapy in COVID-19-infected tumor patients: a retrospective, real-world study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Thi Loi DaoIRD, AP-HM, SSA, VITROME, Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection, Aix Marseille University, 19-21 Boulevard Jean Moulin, 13385, Marseille Cedex 05, France.
Van Thuan HoangIRD, AP-HM, SSA, VITROME, Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection, Aix Marseille University, 19-21 Boulevard Jean Moulin, 13385, Marseille Cedex 05, France.
Philippe GautretIRD, AP-HM, SSA, VITROME, Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection, Aix Marseille University, 19-21 Boulevard Jean Moulin, 13385, Marseille Cedex 05, France. philippe.gautret@club-internet.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1664-958X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many studies have shown that re-positive tests for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR in recovered COVID-19 patients are very common. We aim to conduct this review to summarize the clinical and epidemiological characteristics of these patients and discuss the potential explanations for recurrences, the contagiousness of re-detectable positive SARS-CoV-2 virus, and the management of COVID-19 patients after discharge from hospital. The proportion of re-positive tests in discharged COVID-19 patients varied from 2.4 to 69.2% and persisted from 1 to 38 days after discharge, depending on population size, age of patients, and type of specimens. Currently, several causes of re-positive tests for SARS-CoV-2 in recovered COVID-19 patients are suggested, including false-negative, false-positive RT-PCR tests; reactivation; and re-infection with SARS-CoV-2, but the mechanism leading to these re-positive cases is still unclear. The prevention of re-positive testing in discharged patients is a fundamental measure to control the spread of the pandemic. In order to reduce the percentage of false-negative tests prior to discharge, we recommend performing more than two tests, according to the standard sampling and microbiological assay protocol. In addition, specimens should be collected from multiple body parts if possible, to identify SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA before discharge. Further studies should be conducted to develop novel assays that target a crucial region of the RNA genome in order to improve its sensitivity and specificity.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 Nucleic Acid TestingDisease ManagementFalse Negative ReactionsFalse Positive ReactionsHumansPatient DischargeRecurrenceRNA, ViralSARS-CoV-2RNA, ViralCOVID-19DischargeFalse-negativeFalse-positivePCRRecoveryRecurrenceSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID33113040
PMCPMC7592450

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.