Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33071145›Full record

SynthesisThe Science of the total environment2021

Airborne spread of infectious SARS-CoV-2: Moving forward using lessons from SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.

Priscilla Gomes da Silva, Maria São José Nascimento, Ruben R G Soares, Sofia I V Sousa, João R Mesquita

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Science of the total environment, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.4field-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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. First Report ofViruses · 2023
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Priscilla Gomes da SilvaAbel Salazar Institute of Biomedical Sciences (ICBAS), University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Maria São José NascimentoFaculty of Pharmacy, University of Porto (FFUP), Porto, Portugal; Epidemiology Research Unit (EPIUnit), Institute of Public Health, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Ruben R G SoaresDepartment of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Science for Life Laboratory, Stockholm University, Solna, Sweden; Division of Nanobiotechnology, Department of Protein Science, Science for Life Laboratory, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Solna, Sweden.
Sofia I V SousaLEPABE - Laboratory for Process Engineering, Environment, Biotechnology and Energy, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
João R MesquitaAbel Salazar Institute of Biomedical Sciences (ICBAS), University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; Epidemiology Research Unit (EPIUnit), Institute of Public Health, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. Electronic address: jrmesquita@icbas.up.pt.
Universidade do Porto · PTScience for Life Laboratory · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough an increasing body of data reports the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in air, this does not correlate to the presence of infectious viruses, thus not evaluating the risk for airborne COVID-19. Hence there is a marked knowledge gap that requires urgent attention. Therefore, in this systematic review, viability/stability of airborne SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV viruses is discussed.

methodsA systematic literature review was performed on PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus to assess the stability and viability of SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 on air samples. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The initial search identified 27 articles. Following screening of titles and abstracts and removing duplicates, 11 articles were considered relevant. Temperatures ranging from 20 °C to 25 °C and relative humidity ranging from 40% to 50% were reported to have a protective effect on viral viability for airborne SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. As no data is yet available on the conditions influencing viability for airborne SARS-CoV-2, and given the genetic similarity to SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, one could extrapolate that the same conditions would apply. Nonetheless, the effect of these conditions seems to be residual considering the increasing number of cases in the south of USA, Brazil and India, where high temperatures and humidities have been observed.

conclusionHigher temperatures and high relative humidity can have a modest effect on SARS-CoV-2 viability in the environment, as reported in previous studies to this date. However, these studies are experimental, and do not support the fact that the virus has efficiently spread in the tropical regions of the globe, with other transmission routes such as the contact and droplet ones probably being responsible for the majority of cases reported in these regions, along with other factors such as human mobility patterns and contact rates. Further studies are needed to investigate the extent of aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2 as this would have important implications for public health and infection-control policies.

Indexed as

COVID-19Middle East Respiratory Syndrome CoronavirusBrazilHumansIndiaRNA, ViralSARS-CoV-2RNA, ViralAirborneCOVID-19Emerging diseasesInfectiousSARS-CoV-2Viability

Identifiers

PMID33071145
PMCPMC7543729
OpenAlexW3092133240

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.