ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Addressing bias in the definition of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection: implications for underestimation.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Two Versus One COVID-19 Vaccine Dose After Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Nationwide Retrospective Cohort Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Temporal Alignment of Wastewater Signals with Clinical Indicators of Respiratory Illness Postpandemic, Texas, USA.Emerging infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Risk of stroke following SARS-CoV-2 infection in a nationwide self-controlled case series study in qatar.Scientific reports · 2026Observational
- Bang-bang control optimization in infectious disease model with incorporating breakthrough and reinfection.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Global Estimates of COVID-19 Morbidity and Mortality: A Cohort Study and Mathematical Model Analysis.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2025Article
- Effectiveness and durability of a fourth dose of ancestral-strain mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection: a nationwide matched cohort study in Qatar.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Vaxzevria) primary series vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 beta and delta variants: a nationwide study.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Immune histories and natural infection protection during the omicron era.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Protection conferred by SARS-CoV-2 infection across a spectrum of reinfection symptoms and severities.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Article
- Evaluating Hospital Admission Data as Indicators of COVID-19 Severity: A National Assessment in Qatar.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Article
- BNT162b2 Versus mRNA-1273 Vaccines: Comparative Analysis of Long-Term Protection Against SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Severe COVID-19 in Qatar.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Reinfections are increasingly becoming a feature in the epidemiology of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. However, accurately defining reinfection poses methodological challenges. Conventionally, reinfection is defined as a positive test occurring at least 90 days after a previous infection diagnosis. Yet, this extended time window may lead to an underestimation of reinfection occurrences. This study investigated the prospect of adopting an alternative, shorter time window for defining reinfection. Methods: A longitudinal study was conducted to assess the incidence of reinfections in the total population of Qatar, from February 28, 2020 to November 20, 2023. The assessment considered a range of time windows for defining reinfection, spanning from 1 day to 180 days. Subgroup analyses comparing first versus repeat reinfections and a sensitivity analysis, focusing exclusively on individuals who underwent frequent testing, were performed. Results: The relationship between the number of reinfections in the population and the duration of the time window used to define reinfection revealed two distinct dynamical domains. Within the initial 15 days post-infection diagnosis, almost all positive tests for SARS-CoV-2 were attributed to the original infection. However, surpassing the 30-day post-infection threshold, nearly all positive tests were attributed to reinfections. A 40-day time window emerged as a sufficiently conservative definition for reinfection. By setting the time window at 40 days, the estimated number of reinfections in the population increased from 84,565 to 88,384, compared to the 90-day time window. The maximum observed reinfections were 6 and 4 for the 40-day and 90-day time windows, respectively. The 40-day time window was appropriate for defining reinfection, irrespective of whether it was the first, second, third, or fourth occurrence. The sensitivity analysis, confined to high testers exclusively, replicated similar patterns and results. Discussion: A 40-day time window is optimal for defining reinfection, providing an informed alternative to the conventional 90-day time window. Reinfections are prevalent, with some individuals experiencing multiple instances since the onset of the pandemic.
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.