Fecal specimen diagnosis of novel coronavirus‐infected pneumonia
Fecal specimen diagnosis of novel coronavirus‐infected pneumonia. Spencer EA, Heneghan C.
https://www.cebm.net/study/fecal-specimen-diagnosis-of-novel-coronavirus%e2%80%90infected-pneumonia/
Published on July 1, 2020
Included in
Transmission Dynamics of COVID-19
| Reference |
Zhang J, Wang S, Xue Y. Fecal specimen diagnosis 2019 novel coronavirus‐infected pneumonia. J Med Virol. 2020. 2020 |
| Study type |
|
| Country |
China |
| Setting |
Hospital |
| Funding Details |
Non reported |
| Transmission mode |
Orofecal |
| Exposures |
Hospital patients with COVID-19 pneumonia |
Bottom Line
A small pilot sample of 14 cases indicated agreement for the presence of COVID-19 between oropharyngeal sample and fecal samples.
Evidence Summary
Five of 14 (oropharyngeal sample PCR) confirmed patients had a positive stool sample for COVID‐19 nucleic acid
Patients with positive stool samples were also positive for oropharyngeal swabs specimens at least the day before (see Figure, copied below); patients with negative stool samples were also negative for oropharyngeal swabs for at least the first 2 days (see Figure, copied below).
The presence of SARS-Cov-2 nucleic acid in stool samples was not related to the severity of lung disease (nor to gastrointestinal since none of these patients had GI symptoms).
What did they do?
A retrospective analysis of samples taken from 14 laboratory‐diagnosed patients with COVID‐19 pneumonia. Amongst these patients, none had diarrhoea and vomiting.
These patients were hospitalized from 27th January to 10th February 2020, with final follow‐up for this report on the 9th February 2020.
The hospital commenced taking stool samples, in addition to oropharyngeal, on 4th February.
Study reliability
This is a small pilot study and needs replication with prespecified methods and a large sample size.
| Clearly defined setting |
Demographic characteristics described |
Follow-up length was sufficient |
Transmission outcomes assessed |
Main biases are taken into consideration |
|
Yes |
Unclear |
Unclear |
No
|
Unclear |
What else should I consider?
About the authors
Carl Heneghan
Carl is Professor of EBM & Director of CEBM at the University of Oxford. He is also a GP and tweets @carlheneghan. He has an active interest in discovering the truth behind health research findings
Elizabeth Spencer
Dr Elizabeth Spencer; MMedSci, PhD. Epidemiologist, Nuffield Department for Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford.
