ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Learn from the SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test to increase the experience of dealing with the "disease X ".
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Confronting the known unknown: historical lessons and future strategies for Disease X.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRT‒PCR is crucial for screening for epidemic diseases such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, false positives further plague epidemic prevention and control. This study conducted a stratified study on the initial screening Ct values and false positive ratios, providing experience and reference for addressing future "Disease X".
methodsData from 1,255 positive or suspected positive results were obtained from eleven laboratories with seven different reagents. The proportion of false positives was analyzed on the basis of different Ct values among different reagents and various testing institutions.
resultsWhen the Ct values of both target genes in the initial detection were < 30, a false positive was considered a small probability event (≤ 1.72%). However, when the 30 ≤ Ct value was < 35, significant differences were noted (0%, 1.41%, 7.69%, and 9.14%, P < 0.001). When the Ct value of any target gene is > 35, 15.58 - 24.22% of positive results may be false positive. Among the suspected positive samples, 53.23% were false positive according to retesting. After separate sampling, 4 tubes (30 people involved) from 19 tubes (133 people involved) were negative.
conclusionsIn summary, different strategies should be adopted according to the different Ct values of primary screening results under pandemic prevention and control conditions, which may provide a better reference for the rapid diagnosis of the next "Disease X".
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.