ArticleJournal of clinical virology plus2023
COVID or no COVID: Interpreting inconclusive SARS-CoV-2 qPCR results in different populations and platforms.
Article in Journal of clinical virology plus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- RUNCOV: a one-pot triplex real-time RT-LAMP as a point-of-care diagnostic tool for detecting SARS-CoV-2.Biology methods & protocols · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of GeneXpert and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis: a retrospective study.Access microbiology · 2025Article
- Overcoming Limited Access to Virus Infection Rapid Testing: Development of a Lateral Flow Test for SARS-CoV-2 with Locally Available Resources.Biosensors · 2024Article
- Clinical comparison of three SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests for routine diagnostic testing.Heliyon · 2023Article
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
Introduction: High cycle threshold values (Ct) value) results for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) may be true infections or false-positive results. Misinterpretation of results has negative consequences. Goal of this study was to evaluate quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) results with high Ct-values, to reach a point where a correct interpretation can be given. Methods: High Ct-value results of SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples taken between April 2020 and January 2021 were analysed. Three different SARS-CoV-2 qPCR assays (in-house Results: Out of totally 50.295 samples tested for SARS-CoV-2, the in-house and Alinity M qPCR together yielded 379 inconclusive results. A second sample existed for 217 samples, allowing dynamics of the PCR in time. Of these, 187 were negative (86%), 11 again inconclusive (5%) and 19 positive (9%). Sixteen out of 19 persons with a positive result were HCW, 14 (74%) had a link to a SARS-CoV-2 infected person. The majority of inconclusive results detected with the Xpert Xpress (n=45 of 3603), were related to individuals with a known history of SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=28, 62%). Conclusion: This study shows the importance of re-testing inconclusive SARS-CoV-2 qPCR results. Only then, the correct (true or false) interpretation can be given, leading to the right measures.
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.