ArticleFuture microbiology2020
Anal swab as a potentially optimal specimen for SARS-CoV-2 detection to evaluate hospital discharge of COVID-19 patients.
Article in Future microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecular Diagnosis of COVID-19; Biosafety and Pre-analytical Recommendations.Iranian journal of pathology · 2023Review
- Biased, wrong and counterfeited evidences published during the COVID-19 pandemic, a systematic review of retracted COVID-19 papers.Quality & quantity · 2022Article
- The COVID-19 pandemic - what have urologists learned?Nature reviews. Urology · 2022Review
- Longitudinal, virological, and serological assessment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.Journal of neurovirology · 2022Article
- Saliva specimen complements anal swab in assessing patients with COVID-19 for discharge from hospital.Emerging microbes & infections · 2021Article
- Transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2World journal of clinical cases · 2021Review
- Abdominal imaging in COVID-19.World journal of radiology · 2021Review
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of discharged COVID-19 patients retesting positive for RT-PCR.EClinicalMedicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2021-04-13Informed/Patient Consent - None/Withdrawn · Removed ·
- Erratum issuedCorrigendum.2021
- RetractedRetraction.2021
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Since December 2019, an outbreak of SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) began in Wuhan, and has rapidly spread worldwide. Previously, discharged patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients met the criteria of China's pneumonia diagnosis and treatment program of novel coronavirus infection (trial version 7) for cure of viral infection. Nevertheless, positive detection of SARS-CoV-2 has been found again in several cured COVID-19 patients, leading to conflicts with current criteria. Here, we report clinically cured cases with positive results only in anal swabs, and investigate the clinical value of anal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection.
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.