The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Interim Guidance for Interpretation of Zika Virus Antibody Test Results
Open accessAbstract
Zika virus is a single-stranded RNA virus in the genus Flavivirus and is closely related to dengue, West Nile, Japanese encephalitis, and yellow fever viruses (1,2). Among flaviviruses, Zika and dengue virus share similar symptoms of infection, transmission cycles, and geographic distribution. Diagnostic testing for Zika virus infection can be accomplished using both molecular and serologic methods. For persons with suspected Zika virus disease, a positive real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) result confirms Zika virus infection, but a negative rRT-PCR result does not exclude infection (3-7). In these cases, immunoglobulin (Ig) M and neutralizing antibody testing can identify additional recent Zika virus infections (6,7). However, Zika virus antibody test results can be difficult to interpret because of cross-reactivity with other flaviviruses, which can preclude identification of the specific infecting virus, especially when the person previously was infected with or vaccinated against a related flavivirus (8). This is important because the results of Zika and dengue virus testing will guide clinical management. Pregnant women with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection should be evaluated and managed for possible adverse pregnancy outcomes and be reported to the U.S. Zika Pregnancy Registry or the Puerto Rico Zika Active Pregnancy Surveillance System for clinical follow-up (9,10). All patients with clinically suspected dengue should have proper management to reduce the risk for hemorrhage and shock (11). If serologic testing indicates recent flavivirus infection that could be caused by either Zika or dengue virus, patients should be clinically managed for both infections because they might have been infected with either virus.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Genomic epidemiology reveals multiple introductions of Zika virus into the United States
Grubaugh, N. D., Ladner, J. T., Kraemer, M. U. G., Dudas, G., Tan, A. L., Gangavarapu, K., Wiley, M. R., White, S., Thézé, J., Magnani, D. M., et al. (2017) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature22400 · Cited by 353
Genomic and epidemiological monitoring of yellow fever virus transmission potential
Faria, N. R., Kraemer, M. U. G., Hill, S. C., Goes de Jesus, J., Aguiar, R. S., Iani, F. C. M., Xavier, J., Quick, J., du Plessis, L., Dellicour, S., et al. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aat7115 · Cited by 359
Reynolds, M. R., Jones, A. M., Petersen, E. E., Lee, E. H., Rice, M. E., Bingham, A., Ellington, S. R., Evert, N., Reagan-Steiner, S., Oduyebo, T., et al. (2017) · MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report · doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6613e1 · Cited by 282
Viral Etiology of Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss: Historical Development and Current Evidence
Zhao, S., Liu, X., Shi, X., Zhao, Z., & Sun, Y. (2026) · Viruses · doi:10.3390/v18101097
Metadata
- Authors
- Rabe, I. B., Staples, J. E., Villanueva, J., Hummel, K. B., Johnson, J. A., Rose, L., MTS, Hills, S., Wasley, A., Fischer, M., & Powers, A. M.
- Venue
- MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
- Published
- 2016-06-03
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 543-546
- ISSN
- 0149-2195 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-861X
- OpenAlex
- W2409032752
- Cited by
- 274
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 58.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Interim Guidance for Interpretation of Zika Virus Antibody Test Results. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.15585/mmwr.mm6521e1
- The paper
- Rabe, I. B., Staples, J. E., Villanueva, J., Hummel, K. B., Johnson, J. A., Rose, L., MTS, Hills, S., Wasley, A., Fischer, M., & Powers, A. M. (2016). Interim Guidance for Interpretation of Zika Virus Antibody Test Results. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6521e1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.