ArticlePloS one2023
SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection on environmental surfaces in COVID-19 wards.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
This study monitored the presence of SARS-Cov-2 RNA on environmental surfaces in hospital wards housing patients with mild, severe, and convalescent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), respectively. From 29 October to 4 December 2021, a total of 787 surface samples were randomly collected from a General Ward, Intensive Care Unit, and Convalescent Ward at a designated hospital for COVID-19 patients in China. All of the samples were used for SARS-Cov-2 detection. Descriptive statistics were generated and differences in the positivity rates between the wards were analyzed using Fisher's exact tests, Yates chi-squared tests, and Pearson's chi-squared tests. During the study period, 787 surface samples were collected, among which, 46 were positive for SARS-Cov-2 RNA (5.8%). The positivity rate of the contaminated area in the Intensive Care Unit was higher than that of the General Ward (23.5% vs. 10.4%, P<0.05). The positivity rate of the semi-contaminated area in the Intensive Care Unit (4.5%) was higher than that of the General Ward (1.5%), but this difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05). In the clean area, only one sample was positive in the Intensive Care Unit (0.5%). None of the samples were positive in the Convalescent Ward. These findings reveal that the SARS-Cov-2 RNA environmental pollution in the Intensive Care Unit was more serious than that in the General Ward, while the pollution in the Convalescent Ward was the lowest. Strict disinfection measures, personal protection, and hand hygiene are necessary to limit the spread of SARS-Cov-2.
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.