Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 680

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Open access
Yu, Fengting, Yan, Liting, Wang, Nan, Yang, Siyuan, Wang, Linghang, Tang, Yunxia, Gao, Guiju, Wang, Sa, Ma, Chengjie, Xie, Ruming, Wang, Fang, Tan, Chianru, Zhu, Lingxiang, Guo, Yong, Zhang, Fujie·2020·Clinical Infectious Diseases

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/cid/ciaa345

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 680

Metadata

Authors
Yu, F., Yan, L., Wang, N., Yang, S., Wang, L., Tang, Y., Gao, G., Wang, S., Ma, C., Xie, R., Wang, F., Tan, C., Zhu, L., Guo, Y., & Zhang, F.
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Published
2020-03-28
Volume
71
Issue
15
Pages
793-798
ISSN
  • 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6591
OpenAlex
W3013776441
Cited by
680
References
5
FWCI
18.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quantitative Detection and Viral Load Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 in Infected Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/cid/ciaa345
The paper
Yu, F., Yan, L., Wang, N., Yang, S., Wang, L., Tang, Y., Gao, G., Wang, S., Ma, C., Xie, R., Wang, F., Tan, C., Zhu, L., Guo, Y., & Zhang, F. (2020). Quantitative Detection and Viral Load Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 in Infected Patients. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa345

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.