ArticleEmerging microbes & infections2021
Saliva specimen complements anal swab in assessing patients with COVID-19 for discharge from hospital.
Article in Emerging microbes & infections, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since December 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread and threatens public health worldwide. The recurrence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in patients after discharge from hospital signals a risk of transmission from such patients to the community and challenges the current discharge criteria of COVID-19 patients. A wide range of clinical specimens has been used to detect SARS-CoV-2. However, to date, a consensus has not been reached regarding the most appropriate specimens to use for viral RNA detection in assessing COVID-19 patients for discharge. An anal swab sample was proposed as the standard because of prolonged viral detection. In this retrospective longitudinal study of viral RNA detection in 60 confirmed COVID-19 patients, we used saliva, oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal swab (O/N swab) and anal swab procedures from admission to discharge. The conversion times of saliva and anal swab were longer than that of O/N swab. The conversion time of hyper sensitive-CRP was the shortest and correlated with that of CT scanning and viral detection. Some patients were found to be RNA-positive in saliva while RNA-negative in anal swab while the reverse was true in some other patients, which indicated that false negatives were inevitable if only the anal swab is used for evaluating suitability for discharge. These results indicated that double-checking for viral RNA using multiple and diverse specimens was essential, and saliva could be a candidate to supplement anal swabs to reduce false-negative results and facilitate pandemic control.
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.