Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32706393›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical virology2021

Detection profile of SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR in different types of clinical specimens: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

George M Bwire, Mtebe V Majigo, Belinda J Njiro, Akili Mawazo

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical virology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 135 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
135citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

135 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Traumatic CSF rhinorrhea associated with COVID-19 testing: a case series and systematic review.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. When to test for COVID-19 using real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction: a systematic review.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Why Andes hantavirus is not the next SARS-CoV-2: contrasting viral shedding, transmissibility and genomic patterns.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

George M BwireSchool of Pharmacy, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.ORCID 0000-0002-4867-7200
Mtebe V MajigoSchool of Medicine, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Belinda J NjiroSchool of Medicine, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Akili MawazoInstitute of Allied Health Sciences, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Testing is one of the commendable measures for curbing the spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). But, it should be done using the most appropriate specimen and an accurate diagnostic test such as real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). Therefore, a systematic review was conducted to determine the positive detection rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in different clinical specimens using qRT-PCR. A total of 8136 pooled clinical specimens were analyzed to detect SARS-CoV-2, the majority were nasopharyngeal swabs (69.6%). A lower respiratory tract (LRT) specimens had a positive rate (PR) of 71.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 60.3%-82.3%) while no virus was detected in the urinogenital specimens. Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BLF) specimen had the PR of 91.8% (95% CI: 79.9%-103.7%), followed by rectal swabs; 87.8% (95% CI: 78.6%-96.9%) then sputum; 68.1% (95% CI: 56.9%-79.4%). A low PR was observed in oropharyngeal swabs; 7.6% (95% CI: 5.7%-9.6%) and blood samples; 1.0% (95% CI: -0.1%-2.1%) whereas no SARS-CoV-2 was detected in urine samples. Feces had a PR of 32.8% (95% CI:1 5.8%-49.8%). Nasopharyngeal swab, a widely used specimen had a PR of 45.5% (95% CI: 31.2%-59.7%). In this study, SARS-CoV-2 was highly detected in LRT specimens while no virus was detected in urinogenital specimens. BLF had the highest PR followed by rectal swab then sputum. Nasopharyngeal swab which is widely used had moderate PR. Low PR was recorded in oropharyngeal swab and blood samples while no virus was found in urine samples. Last, the virus was detected in feces, suggesting SARS-CoV-2 transmission by the fecal route.

Indexed as

Bronchoalveolar Lavage FluidCOVID-19COVID-19 TestingFecesHumansNasopharynxOropharynxReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionRNA, ViralSARS-CoV-2Specimen HandlingSputumRNA, Viralclinical sampleclinical specimenCOVID-19polymerase chain reactionSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID32706393
PMCPMC7404904

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.