Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 274

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Interim Guidance for Interpretation of Zika Virus Antibody Test Results

Open access
Rabe, Ingrid B., Staples, J. Erin, Villanueva, Julie, Hummel, Kimberly B., Johnson, Jeffrey A., Rose, Laura, MTS, Hills, Susan, Wasley, Annemarie, Fischer, Marc, Powers, Ann M.·2016·MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.15585/mmwr.mm6521e1

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 274

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.