Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32418307›Full record

SynthesisColorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland2020

Persistent viral shedding of SARS-CoV-2 in faeces - a rapid review.

S Gupta, J Parker, S Smits, J Underwood, S Dolwani

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 110 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
110citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

110 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 189 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Gut distress and interventionFrontiers in public health · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

50 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

S GuptaDivision of Population Medicine, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, UK.
J ParkerDivision of Population Medicine, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, UK.
S SmitsDivision of Population Medicine, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, UK.
J UnderwoodDivision of Infection and Immunity, Department of Infectious Diseases, Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
S DolwaniDivision of Population Medicine, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, UK.
Cardiff University · GBCardiff and Vale University Health Board · GB

Funding

Health and Care Research Wales health fellowship HF-17-1352Medical Research Council MR/T023791/1NIHR NIHR127914Royal College of Surgeons of England Research FellowshipWales Cancer Research Centre and Cardiff University
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimIn addition to respiratory symptoms, COVID-19 can present with gastrointestinal complaints suggesting possible faeco-oral transmission. The primary aim of this review was to establish the incidence and timing of positive faecal samples for SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19.

methodsA systematic literature review identified studies describing COVID-19 patients tested for faecal virus. Search terms for MEDLINE included 'clinical', 'faeces', 'gastrointestinal secretions', 'stool', 'COVID-19', 'SARS-CoV-2' and '2019-nCoV'. Additional searches were done in the American Journal of Gastroenterology, Gastroenterology, Gut, Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the World Health Organization Database, the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, New England Journal of Medicine, social media and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, bioRxiv and medRxiv preprints. Data were extracted concerning the type of test, number and timing of positive samples, incidence of positive faecal tests after negative nasopharyngeal swabs and evidence of viable faecal virus or faeco-oral transmission of the virus.

resultsTwenty-six relevant articles were identified. Combining study results demonstrated that 53.9% of those tested for faecal RNA were positive. The duration of faecal viral shedding ranged from 1 to 33 days after a negative nasopharyngeal swab with one result remaining positive 47 days after onset of symptoms. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that COVID-19 is transmitted via faecally shed virus.

conclusionThere is a high rate of positive polymerase chain reaction tests with persistence of SARS-CoV-2 in faecal samples of patients with COVID-19. Further research is needed to confirm if this virus is viable and the degree of transmission through the faeco-oral route. This may have important implications on isolation, recommended precautions and protective equipment for interventional procedures involving the gastrointestinal tract.

Indexed as

BetacoronavirusVirus SheddingClinical Laboratory TechniquesCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19COVID-19 TestingFecesHumansNasopharynxPandemicsPneumonia, ViralReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionSARS-CoV-2COVID-19faecesgastrointestinalSARS-CoV-2viral shedding

Identifiers

PMID32418307
PMCPMC7276890
OpenAlexW3025748459

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.