4.2 Article

Laboratory Diagnosis and Monitoring the Viral Shedding of SARS-CoV-2 Infection

期刊

INNOVATION
卷 1, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.xinn.2020.100061

关键词

SARS-COV-2; COVID-19; MOLECULAR DIAGNOSIS; RESPIRATORY SPECIMENS; VIRAL SHEDDING

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology [2020YFC0846300]
  2. National Science and Technology Major Project [2017ZX10103011, 2018ZX10711001]
  3. Shenzhen Science and Technology Research and Development Project [202002073000001]
  4. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2019T120147, 2019M660836]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The worldwide epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is ongoing. Rapid and accurate detection of the causative virus SARS-CoV-2 is vital for the treatment and control of COVID-19. In this study, the comparative sensitivity of different respiratory specimen types were retrospectively analyzed using 3,552 clinical samples from 410 COVID-19 patients confirmed by Guangdong CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention). Except for bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), the sputum possessed the highest positive rate (73.4%-87.5%), followed by nasal swabs (53.1%-85.3%) for both severe and mild cases during the first 14 days after illness onset (d.a.o.). Viral RNA could be detected in all BALF samples collected from the severe group within 14 d.a.o. and lasted up to 46 d.a.o. Moreover, although viral RNA was negative in the upper respiratory samples, it was also positive in BALF samples in most cases from the severe group during treatment. Notably, no viral RNA was detected in BALF samples from the mild group. Despite typical ground-glass opacity observed via computed tomographic scans, no viral RNA was detected in the first three or all upper respiratory tract specimens from some COVID-19 patients. In conclusion, sputum is most sensitive for routine laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19, followed by nasal swabs. Detection of viral RNA in BALF improves diagnostic accuracy in severe COVID-19 patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据