ArticleZoological research2021
Lower respiratory tract samples are reliable for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 nucleic acid diagnosis and animal model study.
Article in Zoological research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Convergent Evolution and Host-Limiting Impacts of SARS-CoV-2 Revealed by Cellular Experiments.Molecular biology and evolution · 2025Article
- Article
- HR121 targeting HR2 domain in S2 subunit of spike protein can serve as a broad-spectrum SARS-CoV-2 inhibitorActa pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2023Article
- A tandem-repeat dimeric RBD protein-based covid-19 vaccine zf2001 protects mice and nonhuman primates.Emerging microbes & infections · 2022Article
- Combinational benefit of antihistamines and remdesivir for reducing SARS-CoV-2 replication and alleviating inflammation-induced lung injury in mice.Zoological research · 2022Article
- Captopril alleviates lung inflammation in SARS-CoV-2-infected hypertensive mice.Zoological research · 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
16 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continue to impact countries worldwide. At present, inadequate diagnosis and unreliable evaluation systems hinder the implementation and development of effective prevention and treatment strategies. Here, we conducted a horizontal and longitudinal study comparing the detection rates of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid in different types of samples collected from COVID-19 patients and SARS-CoV-2-infected monkeys. We also detected anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the above clinical and animal model samples to identify a reliable approach for the accurate diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results showed that, regardless of clinical symptoms, the highest detection levels of viral nucleic acid were found in sputum and tracheal brush samples, resulting in a high and stable diagnosis rate. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin M (IgM) and G (IgG) antibodies were not detected in 6.90% of COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, integration of nucleic acid detection results from the various sample types did not improve the diagnosis rate. Moreover, dynamic changes in SARS-CoV-2 viral load were more obvious in sputum and tracheal brushes than in nasal and throat swabs. Thus, SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection in sputum and tracheal brushes was the least affected by infection route, disease progression, and individual differences. Therefore, SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection using lower respiratory tract samples alone is reliable for COVID-19 diagnosis and study.
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.