Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34322501›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2021

Probable Causes and Risk Factors for Positive SARS-CoV-2 Testing in Recovered Patients: Evidence From Guangzhou, China.

Lei Luo, Dan Liu, Zhoubin Zhang, Zhihao Li, Chaojun Xie, Zhenghe Wang, Zongqiu Chen, Peidong Zhang, Xiru Zhang, Yujie Zhang and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

17 authors.

Lei LuoGuangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Guangzhou, China.
Dan LiuDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Zhoubin ZhangGuangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Guangzhou, China.
Zhihao LiDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Chaojun XieGuangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Guangzhou, China.
Zhenghe WangDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Zongqiu ChenGuangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Guangzhou, China.
Peidong ZhangDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Xiru ZhangDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Yujie ZhangDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Wenfang ZhongDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Wenting ZhangDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Pei YangDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Qingmei HuangDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Weiqi SongDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Hui WangGuangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Guangzhou, China.
Chen MaoDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Some patients retested positive for SARS-CoV-2 following negative testing results and discharge. However, the potential risk factors associated with redetectable positive testing results in a large sample of patients who recovered from COVID-19 have not been well-estimated. A total of 745 discharged patients were enrolled between January 30, 2020, and September 9, 2020, in Guangzhou, China. Data on the clinical characteristics, comorbidities, drug therapy, RT-PCR testing, and contact modes to close contacts were collected. Patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 after discharge were confirmed by guidelines issued by China. The repositive rate in different settings was calculated. Among 745 discharged patients, 157 (21.1%; 95% CI, 18.2-24.0%) tested repositive and the repositive rate was 16.8% (95% CI, 14.1-24.0%) for nasopharyngeal swabs and 9.7% (95% CI, 7.0-12.5%) for anal swabs. Among them, 55 (35.0%) were asymptomatic, 15 (9.6%) had mild symptoms, 83 (52.9%) had moderate symptoms, and 4 (2.6%) had severe symptoms at the first admission. The days from discharge to repositivity was 8.0 (IQR, 8.0-14.0). Most repositive patients were without clinical symptoms, and lymphocyte cell counts were higher than before being discharged. The likelihood of repositive testing for SARS-CoV-2 RNA was significantly higher among patients who were of younger age (OR, 3.88; 95% CI, 1.74-8.66, 0-17 years old), had asymptomatic severity (OR, 4.36; 95% CI, 1.47-12.95), and did not have clinical symptoms (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.32-2.70, without fever). No other positive patients emerged within the families or close contacts of repositive patients. Our findings support prolonged but intermittent viral shedding as the probable cause for this phenomenon; we need to familiarize with the possibility that the virus will remain endemic.

Indexed as

cohort studyCOVID-19discharged patientsrepositiverisk factors

Identifiers

PMID34322501
PMCPMC8311025

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.