Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Trip Database Ltd, Newport, NP20 3PS, UK.
F1000Res. 2021 Mar 24;10:233. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.51590.3. eCollection 2021.
SARS-CoV-2 RNA has been detected in fomites which suggests the virus could be transmitted via inanimate objects. However, there is uncertainty about the mechanistic pathway for such transmissions. Our objective was to identify, appraise and summarise the evidence from primary studies and systematic reviews assessing the role of fomites in transmission. This review is part of an Open Evidence Review on Transmission Dynamics of SARS-CoV-2. We conduct ongoing searches using WHO Covid-19 Database, LitCovid, medRxiv, and Google Scholar; assess study quality based on five criteria and report important findings on an ongoing basis. We found 64 studies: 63 primary studies and one systematic review (n=35). The settings for primary studies were predominantly in hospitals (69.8%) including general wards, ICU and SARS-CoV-2 isolation wards. There were variations in the study designs including timing of sample collection, hygiene procedures, ventilation settings and cycle threshold. The overall quality of reporting was low to moderate. The frequency of positive SARS-CoV-2 tests across 51 studies (using RT-PCR) ranged from 0.5% to 75%. Cycle threshold values ranged from 20.8 to 44.1. Viral concentrations were reported in 17 studies; however, discrepancies in the methods for estimation prevented comparison. Eleven studies (17.5%) attempted viral culture, but none found a cytopathic effect. Results of the systematic review showed that healthcare settings were most frequently tested (25/35, 71.4%), but laboratories reported the highest frequency of contaminated surfaces (20.5%, 17/83). The majority of studies report identification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA on inanimate surfaces; however, there is a lack of evidence demonstrating the recovery of viable virus. Lack of positive viral cultures suggests that the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through fomites is low. Heterogeneity in study designs and methodology prevents comparisons of findings across studies. Standardized guidelines for conducting and reporting research on fomite transmission is warranted.
SARS-CoV-2 RNA 已在污染物中被检测到,这表明病毒可能通过无生命物体传播。然而,对于这种传播的机制途径还存在不确定性。我们的目标是识别、评估和总结主要研究和系统评价评估污染物在传播中作用的证据。本综述是关于 SARS-CoV-2 传播动力学的开放证据综述的一部分。我们使用世界卫生组织 COVID-19 数据库、LitCovid、medRxiv 和谷歌学术进行持续搜索;根据五个标准评估研究质量,并持续报告重要发现。我们发现了 64 项研究:63 项主要研究和 1 项系统评价(n=35)。主要研究的设置主要在医院(69.8%),包括普通病房、重症监护室和 SARS-CoV-2 隔离病房。研究设计存在差异,包括样本采集时间、卫生程序、通风设置和循环阈值。总体报告质量为低至中度。51 项研究(使用 RT-PCR)的 SARS-CoV-2 检测阳性率范围为 0.5%至 75%。循环阈值值范围为 20.8 至 44.1。17 项研究报告了病毒浓度;然而,由于估计方法的差异,无法进行比较。11 项研究(17.5%)尝试进行病毒培养,但均未发现细胞病变效应。系统评价的结果表明,医疗保健环境是最常被检测的(25/35,71.4%),但实验室报告的污染表面频率最高(20.5%,17/83)。大多数研究报告在无生命表面上检测到 SARS-CoV-2 RNA;然而,没有证据表明可培养病毒的恢复。缺乏阳性病毒培养表明 SARS-CoV-2 通过污染物传播的风险较低。研究设计和方法的异质性使得难以对研究结果进行比较。需要制定关于污染物传播研究的标准指南。