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.
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.
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, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- COVID-19 passenger screening to reduce travel risk and translocation of disease.Epidemiology and infection · 2024Article
- The relationship between controllability, optimal testing resource allocation, and incubation-latent period mismatch as revealed by COVID-19.Infectious Disease Modelling · 2023Article
- The impacts of vaccination status and host factors during early infection on SARS-CoV-2 persistence:a retrospective single-center cohort study.International immunopharmacology · 2023Article
- The role of inter-regional mobility in forecasting SARS-CoV-2 transmission.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2022Article
- Predictors for adult COVID-19 hospitalized inpatient mortality rate in North West Ethiopia.SAGE open medicine · 2022Article
- COVID-19 false dichotomies and a comprehensive review of the evidence regarding public health, COVID-19 symptomatology, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, mask wearing, and reinfection.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Review
- Vancouver Coastal Health informed COVID-19 response by applying rapid review methodology: reply to Tricco.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Article
- The duration of infectiousness of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2.The Journal of infection · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.