Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35328272›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022

The Effect of Varying Interval Definitions on the Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfections: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Cohort Study.

Sjoerd M Euser, Tieme Weenink, Jan M Prins, Milly Haverkort, Irene Manders, Steven van Lelyveld, Bjorn L Herpers, Jan Sinnige, Jayant Kalpoe, Dominic Snijders and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
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

16 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Sjoerd M EuserRegional Public Health Laboratory Kennemerland, 2035 RC Haarlem, The Netherlands.
Tieme WeeninkRegional Public Health Laboratory Kennemerland, 2035 RC Haarlem, The Netherlands.
Jan M PrinsDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Milly HaverkortPublic Health Service Kennemerland, 2015 CK Haarlem, The Netherlands.
Irene MandersRegional Public Health Laboratory Kennemerland, 2035 RC Haarlem, The Netherlands.
Steven van LelyveldSpaarne Gasthuis, Hoofddorp, 2134 TM Haarlem, The Netherlands.
Bjorn L HerpersRegional Public Health Laboratory Kennemerland, 2035 RC Haarlem, The Netherlands.
Jan SinnigeRegional Public Health Laboratory Kennemerland, 2035 RC Haarlem, The Netherlands.
Jayant KalpoeRegional Public Health Laboratory Kennemerland, 2035 RC Haarlem, The Netherlands.
Dominic SnijdersSpaarne Gasthuis, Hoofddorp, 2134 TM Haarlem, The Netherlands.
James Cohen StuartNoordwest Ziekenhuisgroep, 1815 JD Alkmaar, The Netherlands.
Fred Slijkerman MegelinkPublic Health Service Hollands Noorden, 1823 DL Alkmaar, The Netherlands.
Erik KapteijnsRode Kruis Ziekenhuis, 1942 LE Beverwijk, The Netherlands.
Jeroen den BoerRegional Public Health Laboratory Kennemerland, 2035 RC Haarlem, The Netherlands.
Alex WagemakersRegional Public Health Laboratory Kennemerland, 2035 RC Haarlem, The Netherlands.
Dennis SouvereinRegional Public Health Laboratory Kennemerland, 2035 RC Haarlem, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0455-0336
Spaarne Gasthuis · NLSpaarne Ziekenhuis · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLNoordwest Ziekenhuisgroep · NLRode Kruis Ziekenhuis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe assessed the SARS-CoV-2 reinfection rate in a large patient cohort, and evaluated the effect of varying time intervals between two positive tests on assumed reinfection rates using viral load data.

methodsAll positive SARS-CoV-2 samples collected between 1 March 2020 and 1 August 2021 from a laboratory in the region Kennemerland, the Netherlands, were included. The reinfection rate was analyzed using different time intervals between two positive tests varying between 2 and 16 weeks. SARS-CoV-2 PCR crossing point (Cp) values were used to estimate viral loads.

resultsIn total, 679,513 samples were analyzed, of which 53,366 tests (7.9%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive. The number of reinfections varied between 260 (0.52%) for an interval of 2 weeks, 89 (0.19%) for 4 weeks, 52 (0.11%) for 8 weeks, and 37 (0.09%) for a minimum interval of 16 weeks between positive tests. The median Cp-value (IQR) in the second positive samples decreased when a longer interval was chosen, but stabilized from week 8 onwards.

conclusionsAlthough the calculated reinfection prevalence was relatively low (0.11% for the 8-week time interval), choosing a different minimum interval between two positive tests resulted in major differences in reinfection rates. As reinfection Cp-values stabilized after 8 weeks, we hypothesize this interval to best reflect novel infection rather than persistent shedding.

Indexed as

COVID-19Cp-valuere-infectionSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID35328272
PMCPMC8947046
OpenAlexW4220869741

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.