ArticleInfluenza and other respiratory viruses2021
Distinguishing repeated polymerase chain reaction positivity from re-infections in COVID-19.
Article in Influenza and other respiratory viruses, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Distinguishing repeated polymerase chain reaction positivity from re-infections in COVID-19.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 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
13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPossibility of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 changes our view on herd immunity and vaccination and can impact worldwide quarantine policies. We performed real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) follow-up studies on recovered patients to assess possible development of reinfections and re-positivity.
methodsDuring a 6-month period, 202 PCR-confirmed recovering COVID-19 patients entered this study. Follow-up RT-PCR tests and symptom assessment were performed 1 month after the initial positive results. Patients who tested negative were tested again 1 and 3 months later. The serum IgG and IgM levels were measured in the last follow-up session.
resultsIn the first two follow-up sessions, 82 patients continued their participation, of which four patients tested positive. In the second follow-up 44 patients participated, three of whom tested positive. None of the patients who tested positive in the first and second follow-up session were symptomatic. In the last session, 32 patients were tested and four patients were positive, three of them were mildly symptomatic and all of them were positive for IgG.
conclusionsA positive RT-PCR in a recovering patient may represent reinfection. While we did not have the resources to prove reinfection by genetic sequencing of the infective viruses, we believe presence of mild symptoms in the three patients who tested positive over 100 days after becoming asymptomatic, can be diagnosed as reinfection. The immune response developed during the first episode of infection (e.g., IgG or T-cell mediated responses that were not measured in our study) may have abated the symptoms of the reinfection, without providing complete protection.
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.