ArticleBiosafety and health2024
Efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 detection from used surgical masks compared with standard detection method.
Article in Biosafety and health, 2024. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test is the gold standard for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection. Proper specimen collection and obtaining a sufficient specimen are the most essential steps for laboratory diagnosis. The nasopharyngeal (NP) swab is recommended as the reference collection method. However, NP swab collection is invasive and uncomfortable for patients and poses some risk to healthcare workers. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection from surgical masks with the NP swab method using RT-PCR testing. Of 269 patients, RT-PCR RNA from NP swabs was detected among 82 patients (30.5%) and was undetected among 187 patients (69.5%). All patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA from surgical masks. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 25/82 (30.5%) surgical mask filters, while undetected among 57 (69.5%). For the surgical mask with an average use time of 7.05 h, the sensitivity was 30.5%, the specificity was 100.0%, with positive predictive value of 100.0% and negative predictive value of 76.2%. Therefore, surgical masks could be an alternative non-invasive specimen source for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing. The results of our study suggest that the test could be employed after wearing surgical masks for at least 8-12 h, with increased sensitivity when used for more than 12 h.
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.