ArticleFood and environmental virology2018
Comparison of Swab Sampling Methods for Norovirus Recovery on Surfaces.
Article in Food and environmental virology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detection of Enteroviruses on Environmental Surfaces in Daycare Centers Using Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR) and Its Public Health Implications.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Airborne transmission of biological agents within the indoor built environment: a multidisciplinary review.Air quality, atmosphere, & health · 2023Review
- Microbiome and virome on indoor surfaces of an Antarctic research ship.Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz · 2023Article
- A new long-term sampling approach to viruses on surfaces.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Improved real-time quantitative reverse transcription PCR detection of norovirus following removal of inhibitors.Heliyon · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human noroviruses (HuNoVs) can be easily transferred by the contacts of humans or fomites. Swab sampling methods are widely used for recovering HuNoVs from small surfaces of various fomites or hard-to-reach locations and swab sampling conditions are important for the accurate detection of HuNoVs, which have a low infectious dose and relatively long persistence under a range of environmental conditions. Therefore, to determine the suitable swab sampling method for recovering HuNoVs from various surfaces, we evaluated combinations of four swab materials (cotton, microdenier polyester [a type of microfiber], polyurethane foam, and rayon) and three elution buffer solutions (phosphate-buffered saline [PBS], PBS with 0.2% Tween-80, and 3% beef extract-50 mM glycine [pH 9.5]). First, we inoculated HuNoVs or murine noroviruses (MuNoVs), the surrogate of HuNoVs, onto test coupons (10 × 10 cm) consisting of three common surface materials (high-density polyethylene, stainless steel, and wood). Coupons were swabbed using a combination of each swab material and elution buffer, and the viral recovery was measured by real-time reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) or plaque assay. By RT-qPCR, we confirmed that the cotton swab-PBS and microdenier polyester-PBS combinations had recovery efficiencies greater than 80% for viruses on plastic and stainless steel surfaces. The cotton swab-PBS combination had the highest recovery efficiency on all surface materials via the plaque assay. Therefore, a cotton or a microdenier polyester swab with PBS could be a useful method for sampling HuNoVs on various surfaces.
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.