ArticleArquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia2023
SARS-CoV-2 and the ocular surface: test accuracy and viral load.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the pre-sence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA in the ocular surface of individuals clinically suspected of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and determine the accuracy of different approaches of molecular testing on the ocular surface based on the nasopharyngeal positivity status for COVID-19.
methodsA total of 152 individuals with suspected COVID-19 symptoms who simultaneously underwent nasopharyngeal and two different tear film collection techniques for quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) were included. Tears were collected and randomized: one eye had the filter strip for the Schirmer test and the contralateral eye had conjunctival swab/cytology in the inferior fornix. All patients underwent slit lamp biomicroscopy. The accuracy of various ocular surface collection techniques used for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA was determined.
resultsOf the 152 patients enrolled in the study, 86 (56.6%) had COVID-19 confirmed by nasopharyngeal PCR. Both tear film collection techniques detected viral particles: the Schirmer test was positive in 16.3% (14/86) and the conjunctival swab/cytology in 17.4% (15/86), with no statistically significant differences. No positive ocular tests were found among those with negative nasopharyngeal PCR tests. The overall agreement of the ocular tests was 92.7%, and in combination, the sensitivity would increase to 23.2%. The mean cycle threshold values in the nasopharyngeal, Schirmer, and conjunctival swab/cytology tests were 18.2 ± 5.3, 35.6 ± 1.4, and 36.4 ± 3.9, respectively. Compared with the nasopharyngeal test, the Schirmer (p=0.001) and conjunctival swab/cytology (p<0.001) tests had significantly different Ct values.
conclusionThe Schirmer (16.3%) and conjunctival swab (17.4%) tests were comparably capable of detecting SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the ocular surface by RT-PCR accurately based on nasopharyngeal status and demonstrated indistinct sensitivity and specificity. Simultaneous specimen sampling and processing from the nasopharyngeal, Schirmer, and conjunctival swab/cytology tests demonstrated significantly lower viral load in both ocular surface approaches than in the nasopharyngeal test. Ocular manifestations detected by slit lamp biomicroscopy were not associated with ocular RT-PCR positivity.
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.