Viral load of SARS‐CoV‐2 in stool samples
Viral load of SARS‐CoV‐2 in stool samples. Heneghan C
https://www.cebm.net/study/viral-load-of-sars%e2%80%90cov%e2%80%902-in-stool-samples/
Published on July 30, 2020
Included in
Transmission Dynamics of COVID-19
| Reference |
Pan Y, Zhang D, Yang P et al. Viral load of SARS‐CoV‐2 in clinical samples. Lancet Infect Dis 2020; 20: 411–2. |
| Study type |
|
| Country |
China |
| Setting |
Hospital |
| Funding Details |
Theme-based Research Scheme (UGC, Hong Kong). |
| Transmission mode |
Orofecal |
| Exposures |
|
Bottom Line
Stool samples from 9/17 confirmed patients (53%) were positive on RT-PCR analysis.
Evidence Summary
From 17 confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection with available data (days 0–13 after onset), stool samples from nine (53%; days 0–11 after onset) were positive on RT-PCR analysis. Viral loads were less than those of respiratory samples (range 550 copies per mL to 1·21 × 105 copies per mL).
What did they do?
Serial samples (throat swabs, sputum, urine, and stool) from two patients in Beijing were collected daily after their hospitalisation (patient 1, days 3–12 post-onset; patient 2, days 4–15 post-onset).
Respiratory samples (nasal [n=1], throat swabs [n=67], and sputum [n=42]) were collected from 80 individuals at different stages of infection.
Study reliability
| Clearly defined setting |
Demographic characteristics described |
Follow-up length was sufficient |
Transmission outcomes assessed |
Main biases are taken into consideration |
|
Partly |
No |
Yes |
Yes
|
No |
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
