Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33834961›Full record

ReviewEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin2021

Determining the communicable period of SARS-CoV-2: A rapid review of the literature, March to September 2020.

Mina Park, Colleen Pawliuk, Tribesty Nguyen, Amanda Griffitt, Linda Dix-Cooper, Nadia Fourik, Martin Dawes

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mina ParkSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Colleen PawliukSchool of Information, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Tribesty NguyenFaculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Amanda GriffittSchool of Information, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Linda Dix-CooperVancouver Coastal Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Nadia FourikVancouver Coastal Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Martin DawesDepartment of Family Practice, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
University of British Columbia · CAVancouver Coastal Health · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

IntroductionStandard testing for infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is based on RT-PCR tests, but detection of viral genetic material alone does not indicate ongoing infectious potential. The ability to isolate whole virus represents a better proxy for infectivity.AimThe objective of this study was to gain an understanding of the current literature and compare the reported periods of positive SARS-CoV-2 detection from studies that conducted RT-PCR testing in addition to experiments isolating whole virus.MethodsUsing a rapid review approach, studies reporting empirical data on the duration of positive RT-PCR results and/or successful viral isolation following SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans were identified through searches of peer-reviewed and pre-print health sciences literature. Articles were screened for relevance, then data were extracted, analysed, and synthesised.ResultsOf the 160 studies included for qualitative analysis, 84% (n = 135) investigated duration of positive RT-PCR tests only, 5% (n = 8) investigated duration of successful viral isolations, while 11% (n = 17) included measurements on both. There was significant heterogeneity in reported data. There was a prolonged time to viral clearance when deduced from RT-PCR tests compared with viral isolations (median: 26 vs 9 days).DiscussionFindings from this review support a minimum 10-day period of isolation but certain cases where virus was isolated after 10 days were identified. Given the extended time to viral clearance from RT-PCR tests, future research should ensure standard reporting of RT-PCR protocols and results to help inform testing policies aimed at clearance from isolation.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2COVID-19 Nucleic Acid TestingHumansPatient IsolationTime FactorscommunicableCOVID-19durationrapid reviewSARS-CoV-2transmission

Identifiers

PMID33834961
PMCPMC8034061
OpenAlexW3145144488

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.