Observational studyPloS one2025
The added diagnostic value of RT-PCR on faeces for the diagnosis of COVID-19.
Observational study in PloS one, 2025. 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
objectivesTo determine whether combining a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR on a fecal sample [FS] with a RT-PCR on an upper respiratory tract sample [URTS] results in additional COVID-19 diagnoses.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective observational study at a regional hospital in The Netherlands from 27 February 2020-30 June 2020. Patients presenting with COVID-19-like symptoms for who a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR on both URTS and FS were obtained within 24 hours were included. We calculated the difference in positive RT-PCR when combining URTS/FS compared to URTS alone, overall and stratified by symptom duration and disease severity.
resultsThree hundred eighty-six patients were included of which 63 had a positive RT-PCR on URTS [n = 8], FS [n = 19] or both [n = 36], corresponding to a prevalence of 16.3%. The addition of testing FS increased the number of COVID-19 diagnoses by 31.8% [95%CI 20,3%-43,2%].
conclusionsWe showed that adding SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR on FS to URTS yields significantly more COVID-19 diagnoses. The inclusion of an FS may therefore be considered in patients with a negative URTS and high suspicion of COVID-19.
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.