ArticleBMC infectious diseases2023
Results from a systematic programme of evaluating COVID-19 reinfection cases in the early phase of the pandemic, Singapore.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objectives of this study were to describe the coronavirus disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) reinfection evaluation algorithm used in the early phase of the pandemic in Singapore and analyze the clinical and laboratory characteristics of the cases evaluated.
methodsWe performed a retrospective case-control analysis including all COVID-19 cases evaluated for possible reinfection under the local COVID-19 reinfection evaluation programme between 1 June 2020-30 June 2021. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) was used as confirmatory testing. We compared all reinfection ("RI") cases against those who were evaluated but eventually assessed not to be reinfection ("non-RI").
resultsThere were 74 possible reinfection cases evaluated through the programme, of which 32 were subsequently classified as RI. There was strong statistical evidence that RI cases had a longer interval between 1st and 2nd episode (mean 297 days; 95%-confidence interval (CI) 267-327) compared to non-RI cases (mean 186 days; 95%-CI 144-228). The cycle threshold (Ct) value of initial polymerase chain rection (PCR) at 2nd episode was also found to be significantly lower in RI cases (mean 23; 95%-CI 20-26) compared to non-RI cases (mean 34; 95%-CI 32-36). There was no significant difference in the proportion of individuals who had fever, acute respiratory symptoms or asymptomatic in both groups. Delta and beta variants were most commonly identified from WGS and provide indication of re-infection as these were not 'wild-type' and were not circulating during the time period of the index infection.
conclusionsUsing a combination of serologic, microbiologic and genomic criteria to evaluate possible reinfection cases is useful and can provide a framework for evaluation that may be modified for future similar situations.
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.