ReviewBMJ global health2022
Waiting for the truth: is reluctance in accepting an early origin hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 delaying our understanding of viral emergence?
Review in BMJ global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Features of SARS-CoV-2 Replication in Various Types of Reptilian and Fish Cell Cultures.Viruses · 2023Article
- Serological investigation of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with suspect measles, 2017-2022.Virology journal · 2023Article
- Article
- A comprehensive survey of bat sarbecoviruses across China in relation to the origins of SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2.National science review · 2023Article
- Was Wuhan the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic?-A critique.National science review · 2023Article
- On the epicenter of COVID-19 and the origin of the pandemic strain.National science review · 2023Article
- Can Some Viral Respiratory Infections Observed Before the Pandemic Announcement Be Related to SARS-CoV-2?Thoracic research and practice · 2023Article
- The role of immune suppression in COVID-19 hospitalization: clinical and epidemiological trends over three years of SARS-CoV-2 epidemic.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Molecular evidence for SARS-CoV-2 in samples collected from patients with morbilliform eruptions since late 2019 in Lombardy, northern Italy.Environmental research · 2022Article
- Pre-pandemic antibodies screening against SARS-CoV-2 and virus detection among children diagnosed with eruptive fevers.International journal of immunopathology and pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two years after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, key questions about the emergence of its aetiological agent (SARS-CoV-2) remain a matter of considerable debate. Identifying when SARS-CoV-2 began spreading among people is one of those questions. Although the current canonically accepted timeline hypothesises viral emergence in Wuhan, China, in November or December 2019, a growing body of diverse studies provides evidence that the virus may have been spreading worldwide weeks, or even months, prior to that time. However, the hypothesis of earlier SARS-CoV-2 circulation is often dismissed with prejudicial scepticism and experimental studies pointing to early origins are frequently and speculatively attributed to false-positive tests. In this paper, we critically review current evidence that SARS-CoV-2 had been circulating prior to December of 2019, and emphasise how, despite some scientific limitations, this hypothesis should no longer be ignored and considered sufficient to warrant further larger-scale studies to determine its veracity.
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.