ArticlePloS one2022
Dealing with inconclusive SARS-CoV-2 PCR samples-Our experience.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comprehensive Insights into Monkeypox (mpox): Recent Advances in Epidemiology, Diagnostic Approaches and Therapeutic Strategies.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- SARS-CoV-2 surveillance in a veterinary health system provides insight into transmission risks.Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association · 2024Article
- Pre-Operative SARS-CoV-2 Testing in Asymptomatic Heart Transplantation Recipients.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- Students' Attitudes toward COVID-19 Vaccination: An Inter-University Study from Bulgaria.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- STArS (STrain-Amplicon-Seq), a targeted nanopore sequencing workflow for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics and genotyping.Biology methods & protocols · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEarly confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 is a key point in the timely management of infected patients and contact persons. Routine diagnostics of COVID-19 cases relies on RT-PCR detection of two or three unique sequences of the virus. A serious problem for the laboratories is how to interpret inconclusive samples which are positive for only one of the SARS-CoV-2 specific genes. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 16364 naso-oropharyngeal swabs were collected and tested with SARS-CoV-2 Real-TM kit (Sacace Biotechnologies, Italy) between May and September 2020. We retrospectively analyzed their amplification plots to determine the number of inconclusive samples. We also reviewed the medical records to summarize the patient's COVID-19 testing history and basic demographic characteristics.
resultsWe obtained 136 (0.8%) inconclusive samples with amplification signal only for the N-gene. Thirty-nine of the samples were excluded from further analysis as no additional data were available for them. Of the rest of the samples, the majority- 48% (95% CI 38-59%) had a previous history of SARS-CoV-2 positivity, 14% (95% CI 8-23%)-a subsequent history of positivity and 37% (95% CI 28-48%) were considered as false positive.
conclusionA substantial proportion of the inconclusive results should be considered as positive samples at the beginning or the end of the infection. However, the number of false-positive results is also significant and each patient's result should be analyzed separately following the clinical symptoms and epidemiological data.
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.