ArticleBMC research notes2024
Faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 from patients with asymptomatic and mild COVID-19 without gastrointestinal symptoms in Ghana.
Article in BMC research notes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Longitudinal fecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2, pepper mild mottle virus, and human mitochondrial DNA in COVID-19 patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn this study, we sought to determine whether faecal shedding occurs among SARS-COV-2 positive Ghanaians, as reported elsewhere. Hence we assayed for SARS-COV-2 in the stools of 48 SARS-COV-2 confirmed patients at the Ho Municipal Hospital in Ghana.
resultsOf the 48 COVID-19 patients, 45 (93.8%) had positive tests for SARS-CoV-2 faecal shedding. About 60% reported no respiratory symptoms, while only 2% (1 patient) reported gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms in the form of nausea. Other symptoms reported included headache (57.9%), weakness (57.9%), cough (52.6%), blocked/runny nose (47.4%), fever (31.6%), sore throat (31.6%), and shortness of breath (21.1%). One person complained of nausea (5.3%) Semi-quantitative comparison of the SARS COV-2 viral loads in matched respiratory and faecal samples using the cycle threshold (CT) values revealed no statistical differences. Furthermore, the duration between collection of respiratory and faecal samples did not have any direct influence on the differences in the CT values. This suggests that treatment and use of sewage for environmental surveillance of SARS COV-2 could be a potential public health countermeasure.
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.