ArticleScientific reports2022
Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in exhaled breath from non-hospitalized COVID-19-infected individuals.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. 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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Avian influenza and coronaviruses in live animal and wet markets in Laos: prevalence and public health considerations.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Could hybrid work schedules offer infection risk reductions? Insights from a COBuilding and environment · 2025Article
- Symptom propagation in respiratory pathogens of public health concern: a review of the evidence.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2024Review
- PATHPOD - A loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP)-based point-of-care system for rapid clinical detection of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitals in Denmark.Sensors and actuators. B, Chemical · 2023Article
- Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in exhaled breath and its potential for prevention measures.Infection prevention in practice · 2023Article
- Diagnostic performance of respirators for collection and detection of SARS-CoV-2.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Diagnostic performance of eNose technology in COVID-19 patients after hospitalization.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2023Article
- Advanced setup for safe breath sampling and patient monitoring under highly infectious conditions in the clinical environment.Scientific reports · 2022Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The diagnosis of COVID-19 is based on detection of SARS-CoV-2 in oro-/nasopharyngel swabs, but due to discomfort and minor risk during the swab procedure, detection of SARS-CoV-2 has been investigated in other biological matrixes. In this proof-of-concept study, individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection performed a daily air sample for five days. Air samples were obtained through a non-invasive electrostatic air sampler. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA was determined with qRT-PCR. The association of positive samples with different exposures was evaluated through mixed-effect models. We obtained 665 air samples from 111 included participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Overall, 52 individuals (46.8%) had at least one positive air sample, and 129 (19.4%) air samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Participants with symptoms or a symptom duration ≤ four days had significantly higher odds of having a positive air sample. Cycle threshold values were significantly lower in samples obtained ≤ 4 days from symptom onset. Neither variant of SARS-CoV-2 nor method of air sampling were associated with a positive air sample. We demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is detectable in human breath by electrostatic air sampling with the highest detection rate closest to symptom onset. We suggest further evaluation of the air sampling technique to increase sensitivity.
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.