ArticleScientific reports2024
Cycle threshold of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR as a driver of retesting.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lung transplantation in a patient with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a case report.Respiratory medicine case reports · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Novel RITA MTBC Assay for Tuberculosis Detection: A Pilot Comparison with GeneXpert and BD MAX™.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Prolonged SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection by RT-PCR: variability in cycle threshold values over time.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Investigating the relationship between cycle threshold of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, clinical features, and laboratory data in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Semnan, Iran.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Cycle Threshold Values of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR during Outbreaks in Nursing Homes: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR is a critical and, at times, limited resource. Frequent Retesting of patients may strain testing infrastructure unduly. Recommendations that include cycle threshold (Ct) cutoffs may incentivize early retesting when the Ct value is reported. We aimed to investigate patterns of retesting in association with initial Ct-values. We performed a retrospective analysis of RT-PCR results (including Ct-values) for patients from whom ≥ 2 samples were collected within 14 days, the first of which had to be positive. We calculated absolute and baseline-corrected kinetics of Ct-values over time, as well as the median initial Ct-values in dependence of the timing of the first retesting and the time until RT-PCR negativity for SARS-CoV-2. Retesting after an initial positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR was most commonly performed on day 7, with patients being retested as early as day 1. The majority of patients retested within 14 days remained SARS-CoV-2 positive in the RT-PCR. Baseline-corrected Ct-values showed a quasi-linear increase over 14 days since the initial positive result. Both the timing until the first retesting and until RT-PCR negativity were inversely correlated with the initial Ct-value. The timing of retesting after a positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR appears to be significantly influenced by the initial Ct-value. Although it can be assumed that Ct-values will increase steadily over time, strategies that rely on rigid Ct-cutoffs should be discussed critically, not only because of methodological caveats but also because of the strain on testing infrastructure caused by the incentive for early retesting that Ct-values apparently represent.
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.