ArticleGMS hygiene and infection control2025
Clinical and molecular fingerprint of SARS-CoV-2 among hospital employees in a period of Omicron BA.2 dominance.
Article in GMS hygiene and infection control, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the spring of 2022, SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2 peaked in Germany. The main burden was staff shortage. To achieve effective identification and management of infected persons as well as early reintegration of recovered persons, an infection-control outpatient clinic was established at the Bundeswehr Central Hospital Koblenz. This article reports a secondary data analysis of 663 people with 1,174 visits to the outpatient clinic. For asymptomatic contacts, no correlation was observed between PCR result and testing time or frequency. Although no significant symptoms were documented, a high correlation was found between a positive antigen self-test and positive PCR. For clearance, a median time until a negative test was obtained was 8-11 days. The PCR gold standard was compared with ECLIA antigen testing for all indications. The results of this study challenge the rationale for testing asymptomatic contacts. Solely symptom-driven diagnostics by PCR also do not seem to be effective. However, contact persons or symptomatic persons with a positive rapid antigen test should be tested further. Whether this testing is done by ECLIA or PCR does not seem to matter. Clearance testing after recovery prior to day 8 is also not appropriate.
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.