ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022
False-Positive Results of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR in Oropharyngeal Swabs From Vaccinators.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Use of high-resolution fluorescence in situ hybridization for fast and robust detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNAs.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Antibody Response against SARS-CoV-2 after mRNA Vaccine in a Cohort of Hospital Healthy Workers Followed for 17 Months.Vaccines · 2024Article
- A Hypertonic Seawater Nasal Irrigation Solution Containing Algal and Herbal Natural Ingredients Reduces Viral Load and SARS-CoV-2 Detection Time in the Nasal Cavity.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Hybridization-driven fluorometric platform based on metal-organic frameworks for the identification of the highly homologous viruses.Microchemical journal : devoted to the application of microtechniques in all branches of science · 2023Article
- Article
- Shifting the paradigm in RNA virus detection: integrating nucleic acid testing and immunoassays through single-molecule digital ELISA.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
- Comparison of the performance of two real-time fluorescent quantitative PCR kits for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid: a study based on large real clinical samples.Virology journal · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the gold standard for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, RT-PCR may yield false-positive results, leading to unnecessary countermeasures. Here, we report a "positive" nucleic acid test on a 10-pooled sample during the routine screening that caused many adverse societal effects, and financial and resource losses. However, they were subsequently determined to be a case of vaccine contamination. This case study increases awareness of false-positive RT-PCR results for SARS-CoV-2, especially when participants are vaccinators. Moreover, it could provide relevant suggestions to prevent the recurrence of such incidents.
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.