ReviewSAGE open medicine2022
Minimum infective dose of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 based on the current evidence: A systematic review.
Review in SAGE open medicine, 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.
- Insights into the mechanisms of infection transmission via inanimate surfaces.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- SARS-CoV-2 Did Not Spread Through Dental Clinics During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan.Infectious disease reports · 2025Article
- Lung infection in orally inoculated SARS-CoV-2 hamsters.PloS one · 2025Article
- The airborne transmission of viruses causes tight transmission bottlenecks.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Effects of Smoking on COVID-19 Management and Mortality: An Umbrella Review.Journal of smoking cessation · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Understanding the minimum infective dose is significant for risk assessment in the performance of suitable infection control strategies in healthcare centers. However, the literature lacks strong evidence regarding this value for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the minimum infectious dose of coronavirus disease 2019. Methods: We searched the databases of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane and retrieved all the relevant literature by 25 July 2021. The records were downloaded into the EndNote software and underwent title/abstract and full-text screenings. A summary of included studies was organized into tables for further analysis, interpretation, and drafting of the results. Results: Nineteen studies including the laboratory data on human and animal hosts were selected based on the eligibility criteria. All the literature reported on the infective dose, particularly in humans. The main methods for measurement of infection were through tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50) and counting plaque-forming units. The range of minimum infective was 1.26-7 × 10 Conclusion: In this study, we have presented a range of minimum infective doses in humans and various animal species. Such numbers can possibly vary between the individuals based on numerous demographic, immunologic, or other factors.
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.