ArticleClinical and experimental medicine2023
Evidence of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection: analysis of 35,000 subjects and overview of systematic reviews.
Article in Clinical and experimental medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Incidence and outcome of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in the pre-Omicron era: A global systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of global health · 2023Pooled it
- Article
- Assessing the dynamics and impact of COVID-19 vaccination on disease spread: A data-driven approach.Infectious Disease Modelling · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReinfection by SARS-CoV-2 is a rare but possible event. We evaluated the prevalence of reinfections in the Province of Modena and performed an overview of systematic reviews to summarize the current knowledge.
methodsWe applied big data analysis and retrospectively analysed the results of oro- or naso-pharyngeal swab results tested for molecular research of viral RNA of SARS-CoV-2 between 1 January 2021 and 30 June 2021 at a single center. We selected individuals with samples sequence of positive, negative and then positive results. Between first and second positive result we considered a time interval of 90 days to be sure of a reinfection. We also performed a search for and evaluation of systematic reviews reporting SARS-CoV-2 reinfection rates. Main information was collected and the methodological quality of each review was assessed, according to A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR).
resultsInitial positive results were revealed in more than 35,000 (20%) subjects; most (28%) were aged 30-49 years old. Reinfection was reported in 1,258 (3.5%); most (33%) were aged 30-49 years old. Reinfection rates according to vaccinated or non-vaccinated subjects were 0.6% vs 1.1% (p < 0.0001). Nine systematic reviews were identified and confirmed that SARS-CoV-2 reinfection rate is a rare event. AMSTAR revealed very low-moderate levels of quality among selected systematic reviews.
conclusionsThere is a real, albeit rare risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection. Big data analysis enabled accurate estimates of the reinfection rates. Nevertheless, a standardized approach to identify and report reinfection cases should be developed.
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.