ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023
Evaluation of droplet digital qRT-PCR (dd qRT-PCR) for quantification of SARS CoV-2 RNA in stool and urine specimens of COVID-19 patients.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Molecular Diagnostics of Infectious Diseases.Yonago acta medica · 2026Review
- Multisite community-scale monitoring of respiratory and enteric viruses in the effluent of a nursing home and in the inlet of the local wastewater treatment plant.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2024Article
- Ready for new waves: optimizing SARS-CoV-2 variants monitoring in pooled samples with droplet digital PCR.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: There have been a few reports of viral load detection in stool and urine samples of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and the transmission of the virus through faecal oral route. For clinical diagnosis and treatment, the widely used reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) method has some limitations. Methods: The aim of our study to assess the presence and concentration of SARS CoV-2 RNA in stool and urine samples from COVID-19 patients with mild, moderate, and severe disease, we compared a traditional qRT-PCR approach with a ddPCR. ddPCR and qRT-PCR-based target gene analysis were performed on 107 COVID-19-confirmed patients paired samples (N1 and N2). The MagMax magnetic beads base method was used to isolate RNA. Real-time qRT-PCR and dd PCR were performed on all patients. Results and Discussion: The average cycle threshold (Ct) of qRT-PCR was highly correlated with the average copy number of 327.10 copies/l analyzed in ddPCR. In ddPCR, urine samples showed 27.1% positivity while for stool it was 100%. Conclusion: This study's findings not only show that SARS CoV-2 is present in urine and faeces, but also suggest that low concentrations of the viral target ddPCR make it easier to identify positive samples and help resolve for cases of inconclusive diagnosis.
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.