SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2025
Viral cultures for assessing airborne infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is uncertainty about the quantification, viability and infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 in air samples. Our objective was to systematically review the evidence for air sample virus infectiousness with high-level confirmatory studies.
methodsWe conducted literature searches in LitCovid, medRxiv, PubMed, the WHO Covid-19 databases, and Google Scholar. We included studies that assessed viral infectiousness in the air using viral culture or serial qRT-PCR with or without genomic sequencing. Our primary outcome was the proportion of culture-positive air samples of SARS-CoV-2. Secondary outcomes explored the relationship between infectiousness and Cycle threshold (Ct). We used published methods for assessing quality, and R software for meta-analysis.
resultsWe included 26 studies that used viral culture to assess air sample positivity of SARS-CoV-2. The overall reporting quality was moderate. The overall pooled frequency of positive viral cultures was 14% (95% CI 7-17, I
conclusionsThe proportion of positive SARS-CoV-2 viral cultures following positive RNA samples in the air is low, suggesting that while viral RNA may be present, the likelihood of detecting culturable, infectious viruses is substantially lower. Our findings underscore the need for standardized guidelines to assess and report the infectivity and potential for transmissibility of airborne viruses, including the consistent reporting of Ct values and methods to mitigate bias.
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.