Quantitative Detection and Viral Load Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 in Infected Patients

Clicks: 1
ID: 307243
2020
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #465 of 530 articles by views in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 530 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a public health emergency. The widely used reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) method has limitations for clinical diagnosis and treatment. Methods A total of 323 samples from 76 COVID-19–confirmed patients were analyzed by droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and RT-PCR based 2 target genes (ORF1ab and N). Nasal swabs, throat swabs, sputum, blood, and urine were collected. Clinical and imaging data were obtained for clinical staging. Results In 95 samples that tested positive by both methods, the cycle threshold (Ct) of RT-PCR was highly correlated with the copy number of ddPCR (ORF1ab gene, R2 = 0.83; N gene, R2 = 0.87). Four (4/161) negative and 41 (41/67) single-gene positive samples tested by RT-PCR were positive according to ddPCR with viral loads ranging from 11.1 to 123.2 copies/test. The viral load of respiratory samples was then compared and the average viral load in sputum (17 429 ± 6920 copies/test) was found to be significantly higher than in throat swabs (2552 ± 1965 copies/test, P < .001) and nasal swabs (651 ± 501 copies/test, P < .001). Furthermore, the viral loads in the early and progressive stages were significantly higher than that in the recovery stage (46 800 ± 17 272 vs 1252 ± 1027, P < .001) analyzed by sputum samples. Conclusions Quantitative monitoring of viral load in lower respiratory tract samples helps to evaluate disease progression, especially in cases of low viral load.
Reference Key
openalex_W3013776441 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Fengting Yu, Liting Yan, Nan Wang, Siyuan Yang, Linghang Wang, Yunxia Tang, Guiju Gao, Sa Wang, Chengjie Ma, Ruming Xie, Fang Wang, Chianru Tan, Lingxiang Zhu, Yong Guo, Fujie Zhang
Journal Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
Year 2020
DOI
10.1093/cid/ciaa345
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.