ArticleInternational ophthalmology2022
SARS-COV-2 viral load in tears of patients with COVID-19 in the early symptomatic stages: comparison of two different tear sampling methods.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- COVID-19 detection in bone tissue after a new protocol for decellularize bone with sustained collagen matrix.Cell and tissue banking · 2025Article
- SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates in tear secretions of inpatient COVID-positive individuals in an Indian tertiary care setting.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Article
- Incidence and clinical characteristic of ocular surface manifestation: an evaluation of conjunctival swab results in Corona Virus 2019 (COVID-19) patients in Jakarta, Indonesia.Journal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection · 2023Article
- Exploring the Ocular Transmission Potential of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 and the Assessment of Conjunctival Swab Test Results: A Concise Review.Journal of current ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus in tears of patients with COVID-19 in the early symptomatic stages and to compare two different sampling methods. MATERIALS AND
methodIn this cross-sectional study, tears sampling was performed in COVID-19 patients admitted within the first 7 days of symptom onset. The samples were collected with both conjunctival swabs and Schirmer strips. Each specimen was analyzed via RT-PCR. The viral load was evaluated in terms of the cycle threshold value. Ocular and systemic symptoms and comorbidities of the patients were also recorded.
resultsForty patients were included. The average time from the initiation of symptoms was 3.15 days. Unilateral conjunctivitis has been observed in 5% of patients and foreign body sensation in 7.5% of patients. No viral RNA was detected in the tear samples of the patients with ocular findings. The positivity rate for SARS-CoV-2 in tears was 2.5% (n = 1). None of the samples collected by Schirmer test strips yielded positive polymerase chain reaction result for SARS-COV-2. The Ct value of the positive conjunctival swab was 36.03 and the nasopharyngeal Ct value of the same patient was 25.68.
conclusionThe SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding rate has been determined as 2.5% in the tears of early symptomatic stage COVID-19 patients. The viral load of the tears was lower than the naso-oropharynx. The conjunctival swab method is recommended in tear collection to evaluate the presence of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR analysis in low viral load tears.
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.