ArticleJournal of cellular and molecular medicine2025
Monitoring SARS-CoV-2 Dissemination in Wastewater and Virus Isolation in Cell Cultures: An Integrated Approach for Pathogen Detection and Surveillance.
Article in Journal of cellular and molecular medicine, 2025. 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.
- Monitoring SARS-CoV-2 Dissemination in Wastewater and Virus Isolation in Cell Cultures: An Integrated Approach for Pathogen Detection and Surveillance.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Our study presents wastewater (WW) monitoring data, focusing on determining the infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 in the collected samples. Additionally, a panel of different viruses has been tested in the WW samples. The untreated WW monitoring campaign took place over 1 year in Bucharest, with approximately 300 samples being collected twice a week at the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and an infectious diseases hospital. Our data indicated that SARS-CoV-2 concentrations in WW preceded the increase in the number of clinical cases by nearly 2 weeks. Differences between locations were notable, with higher raw concentrations in WW samples from the hospital than those from the WWTP. However, after normalising to population equivalent, the hospital samples concentrations dropped significantly, suggesting that WW monitoring at the urban level provides a more complete and epidemiologically relevant picture than data obtained only from hospitals. Only a few isolates could demonstrate SARS-CoV-2 persistence during in vitro passages. Although the success rate was low, the technique remains crucial for validating the viability of viruses. Adenovirus, Bocavirus and Reovirus were the most abundant ones in both urban and hospital wastewater. WW monitoring remains the most effective approach for tracking the dissemination of various pathogens and supporting public health authorities.
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.