Abstract
Objective Investigating the infectivity of body fluid can be useful for preventative measures in the community and ensuring safety in the operating rooms and on the laboratory practices.
Methods We performed a literature search of clinical trials, cohorts, and case series using PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane library, and downloadable database of CDC. We excluded case reports and searched all-language articles for review and repeated until the final drafting. The search protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database.
Results Thirty studies with urinary sampling for viral shedding were included. A total number of 1,271 patients were enrolled initially, among which 569 patients had undergone urinary testing. Nine studies observed urinary viral shedding in urine from 41 patients. The total incidence of urinary SARS-CoV-2 shedding was 8%, compared to 21.3% and 39.5 % for blood and stool, respectively. The summarized risk ratio (RR) estimates for urine positive rates compared to the pharyngeal rate was 0.08. The pertaining RR urine compared to blood and stool positive rates were 0.20 and 0.33 respectively.
Conclusions Our review concludes that not only the SARS-CoV-2 can be excreted in the urine in eight percent of patients but also its incidence may have associations with the severity of the systemic disease, ICU admission, and fatality rates. Moreover, the findings in our review suggest that a larger population size may reveal more positive urinary cases possibly by minimizing biases. However, it is important to notice that it is the naso-pharyngeal specimens, stool, and serum that show more possibilities to became positive, respectively.
Take-home bullet points
❖ The urinary shedding incidence was 8%, compared to 21.3% and 39.5 % for blood and stool, respectively.
❖ Urinary shedding may have associations with the severity of the systemic disease, ICU admission, and fatality rates.
❖ Repeat urinary testing is warranted throughout the disease phases, especially in clinically suspected cases with an initially negative results.
❖ Technical errors in handling samples, as well as different rRT-PCR methods can be responsible for diversity found in results, in part.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This paper is a systematic review and meta-analysis.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Points added.
Data Availability
This is a systematic review and meta-analysis. All data and analysis have been included into the paper.
