ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2024
Repeat testing of mpox specimens with late CTs improves detection of potential false positive cases.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of a Novel Multiplex PCR Assay for Vesicular Viruses.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Differences in Ct Values in qPCR Tests for the Diagnosis of Mpox: Results of a Cross-Sectional Study.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Diagnostic performance of mpox virus (MPXV) real-time PCR assays: multicenter assessment and extended sensitivity analysis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The mpox pandemic necessitated the rapid development of clinical assays for monkeypox virus detection. While the majority of mpox specimens have high viral loads with corresponding early cycle threshold (CT) values, reports have indicated some specimens with late CT values can represent false positive results. To mitigate this risk, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published an advisory recommending repeat testing of all specimens with CT values ≥34. However, limited experimental data were available to support this specific cutoff. In this study, we examine whether a more conservative approach in which all specimens with CT values ≥29 are repeated would improve the detection of potential false positive results. Compared to the CDC algorithm, our approach identified an additional 20% (5/25) of potential false positive results. To assess the impact of this cutoff on laboratory workload, we modeled the expected increase in test volume and turnaround time (TAT) relative to the CDC method. Using a lower repeat threshold, test volume increased by 0.7% while mean TAT increased by less than 15 minutes. Overall, a lower threshold than recommended by the CDC for repeating late CT mpox specimens may reduce the number of false positives reported while minimally impacting testing volume and TAT.
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.