Presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in COVID-19 survivors with post-COVID symptoms: a systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Viral persistence is one of the main hypotheses explaining the presence of post-COVID symptoms. This systematic review investigated the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in plasma, stool, urine, and nasal/oral swab samples in individuals with post-COVID symptomatology. CONTENT: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science databases, as well as medRxiv/bioRxiv preprint servers were searched up to November 25th, 2023. Articles investigating the persistence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in plasma, stool, urine or nasal/oral swab samples in patients with post-COVID symptoms were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or Cochrane's Risk of Bias (Rob) tool. SUMMARY: From 322 studies identified, six studies met all inclusion criteria. The sample included 678 COVID-19 survivors (52 % female, aged from 29 to 66 years). The methodological quality was moderate in 88 % of the studies (n=5/6). Three papers investigated the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in plasma, three studies in nasal/oral swabs, two studies in stool samples, one in urine and one in saliva. The follow-up was shorter than two months (<60 days after) in 66 % of the studies (n=4/6). The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA ranged from 5 to 59 % in patients with post-COVID symptoms the first two months after infection, depending on the sample tested, however, SARS-CoV-2 RNA was also identified in COVID-19 survivors without post-COVID symptoms (one study). OUTLOOK: Available evidence can suggest the presence of persistent SARS-CoV-2 RNA in post-COVID patients in the short term, although the biases within the studies do not permit us to make firm assumptions. The association between post-COVID symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the samples tested is also conflicting. The lack of comparative group without post-COVID symptoms limits the generalizability of viral persistence in post-COVID-19 condition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".