ArticleDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease2021
Follow-up testing of borderline SARS-CoV-2 patients by rRT-PCR allows early diagnosis of COVID-19.
Article in Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04636294 (Follow-up of Patients With a Borderline COVID-19 PCR Test Result), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Follow-up of Patients With a Borderline COVID-19 PCR Test Result
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- COVID or no COVID: Interpreting inconclusive SARS-CoV-2 qPCR results in different populations and platforms.Journal of clinical virology plus · 2023Article
- Follow-up COVID-19 PCR result up to day 5 with clinical features predicts positivity for inconclusive results.Journal of clinical virology plus · 2022Article
- Clinical evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-based rapid diagnostic test kit for detection of COVID-19 cases in Bangladesh.Heliyon · 2021Article
- Deep Fractional Max Pooling Neural Network for COVID-19 Recognition.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in nasopharyngeal samples using the real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) is the gold standard for diagnosing COVID-19. Determination of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by rRT-PCR sometimes results in an inconclusive test result due to a high cycle threshold-value. We retrospectively analyzed 30,851 SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR test results. Borderline positivity was considered as the presence of ≤25 viral copies per milliliter, while no amplification was considered as a negative test result. Of all test results, 204 were answered as borderline, of which 107 were accompanied by a follow-up test within 96 hours. Of the 107 follow-up samples, 10 (9.35%) were found positive for SARS-CoV-2. COVID-19 symptoms were not predictive for testing positive in the follow-up test. The positive SARS-CoV-2 samples in the follow-up group represented 0.92% of all positive test results, highlighting the need for retesting and increased hygienic measures for borderline SARS-CoV-2 patients [NCT04636294].
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.