ArticleCureus2025
Repeated Detection of Rubella Virus IgM Antibodies in Two Pregnancies Without Evidence of Fetal Infection: A Case Report and Challenges in Serological Interpretation.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Serologic screening for rubella virus, as part of TORCH testing during pregnancy, remains a cornerstone in the prevention of congenital rubella syndrome. However, isolated detection of rubella-specific IgM antibodies may lead to diagnostic uncertainty, especially in the absence of clinical signs or supporting serological evidence. We present a case of a pregnant woman who tested positive for rubella IgM antibodies during two consecutive pregnancies, despite lacking any sonographic or serologic indications of fetal infection. Both pregnancies culminated in the delivery of healthy neonates with no clinical or laboratory evidence of congenital rubella. This case highlights the possibility of false-positive IgM results, persistent IgM antibodies, or nonspecific immune reactivity. Timely clarification of such findings is essential to avoid unnecessary anxiety and invasive procedures. Interpretation of rubella IgM results should always consider the clinical context, supplemental serologic tests (such as IgG avidity), and current epidemiological data.
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.