EDITOR’S LETTER
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by “Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2” (SARS-CoV-2) was first reported in China.[1] This is the third extremely pathogenic human coronavirus which has emerged recently after severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronavirus. SARS-CoV-2 is mainly transmitted by person-to-person contact in community and health-care settings.[2] This pattern of spread demands large-scale and proactive measures to avoid further widespread dissemination. SARS-CoV-2 survives on contaminated dry surfaces and fomites, which facilitate hand to mucous membranes (of the mouth, nose, and eyes) spread.[3,4] This emphasizes the significance of in-depth knowledge about the perseverance of coronavirus on inanimate surfaces.[5] Various fixatives and biocidal agents are widely used in health-care settings including cytopathology laboratories which may impact (and help negate) the spread of this virus.[6,7]
The current review summarizes the available relevant data on this topic about cytopathology laboratory protocols and suggests precautions based on this data. These recommendations may change as new information comes to light. Each institution and laboratory has to adapt and adjust depending on local regulatory limitations. The recommendations suggested at the end of the review discussion should be considered with these things in mind.
At present, the diagnosis of COVID 19 is mostly being accomplished by performing real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) for SARS-CoV-2 on respiratory specimens such as nasopharyngeal swabs.[8] The primary mode of spread, which has led to the global pandemic, is the respiratory route. A report studying different types of clinical specimens from patients (most cases 1–3 days after hospital admission) detected a positive PCR test in about 1% (n = 307) of blood samples, suggesting the systemic nature of the disease in at least a portion of the cases.[9] This study also reported positive results in 29% (n = 153) of fecal samples.[9] Although tests based on PCR have been reported positive in non-respiratory specimens, it does equate with infectivity and so the non-respiratory route of viral transmission is possible but is not proven at this stage.
As mentioned previously, the molecular test to detect SARS-CoV-2 is based on rRT-PCR. This test amplifies viral RNA in a patient’s specimen for the detection of SARS- CoV-2 genetic material.[10] False negatives are possible due to multiple variables including simple technical errors, inadequate collection, improper handling, and shipping. Other possibilities for incorrect results include flawed key reagents in the kit.[11] One study comparing rRT-PCR with computerized tomography (CT), reports that the sensitivity of the test is only 70%.[12] Further compounding the issue, the sensitivity may be lower in some symptomatic cases due to a smaller viral load,[13] but usually the viral load is higher in the early stages of the disease. However, newer tests suggest higher sensitivity with the potential of false positives due to very high sensitivity and possible cross contaminations during the pandemic with the widespread presence of virus (at the level of collection of sample and later during the technical procedure).
As a result, even if the specimen in the cytopathology laboratory is not expected to be positive or even if the molecular test is negative for SARS-CoV-2, all of the specimens should be considered potentially positive. It is therefore mandatory to practice all the universal/standard precautions with basic protective measures while handling any biological specimen irrespective of SARS-CoV-2 status [Tables 1-3].[14-16] All cytology personnel should follow the basic protective measures against SARS-CoV-2 recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) [Table 2].[16]
Table 1:
|
Table 3:
|
Table 2:
|
Although, appropriate disinfectants and precautions related to cytopathological/histological fixation and processing of samples during the current COVID 19 pandemic are not known, information can likely be extrapolated from other recent coronaviruses (e.g., SARS and MERS). Similar protocols should be effective to disinfect and inactivate SARS-CoV-2.[17] Thus, once the processing is complete as cytopathologic preparation and after formalin fixation and paraffin embedding for cell-blocks, SARS-CoV-2 if present in the specimen should be inactive.[17]
A study reported that aerosol and fomite transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is possible because the pathogen continues to be infectious for hours in aerosols and for days on surfaces.[18] The findings are comparable to those observed with SARS- CoV-1[19] providing useful information for the current mitigation efforts during this pandemic. The study observed that SARS-CoV-2 survives for up to 24 h on cardboard and plastic/stainless-steel surfaces up to 2–3 days.[18-20]
Many ostensibly clean surfaces and devices within a pathology department (including but not limited to doorknobs, tables and chairs, countertops, desks, keyboards, phones, microscopes, glass slides, slide trays/boards, on-site adequacy carts, door handles, light switches, toilets, faucets, and sinks) may be contaminated with the virus and should be considered potential fomites.[21] The duration for which SARS-CoV-2-like viruses have been reported to persist on various surfaces is listed in Table 4.[22]
Table 4:
Type of surface | Virus | Strain/isolate | Inoculum (viral titer) | Temperature | Persistence |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Glass | SARS-CoV | P9 | 105 | RT | 4 d |
HCoV | 229E | 103 | 21°C | 5 d | |
Plastic | SARS-CoV | HKU39849 | 105 | 22–25°C | <5 d |
MERS-CoV | HCoV-EMC/2012 | 105 | 20°C | 48 h | |
30°C | 8–24 h | ||||
SARS-CoV | P9 | 105 | RT | 4 d | |
SARS-CoV | FFM1 | 107 | RT | 6–9 d | |
HCoV | 229E | 107 | RT | 2–6 d | |
PVC plastic | HCoV | 229E | 103 | 21°C | 5 d |
Paper | SARS-CoV | P9 | 105 | RT | 4–5 d |
SARS-CoV | GVU6109 | 106 | RT | 24 h | |
105 | RT | 3 h | |||
104 | RT | <3 min | |||
Surgical glove (latex) | HCoV | 229E and OC43 | 5 × 103 | 21°C | <8 h |
Disposable gown | SARS-CoV | GVU6109 | 106 | RT | 2 d |
105 | RT | 24 h | |||
104 | RT | 1 h | |||
Aluminum | HCoV | 229E and OC43 | 5 × 103 | 21°C | 2–8 h |
Metal | SARS-CoV | P9 | 105 | RT | 5 d |
Steel | MERS-CoV | HCoV-EMC/2012 | 105 | 20°C | 48 h |
TGEV | Unknown | 106 | 4°C | >28 d | |
20°C | 3–28 d | ||||
40°C | 4–96 h | ||||
MHV | Unknown | 106 | 4°C | >28 d | |
20°C | 3–28 d | ||||
40°C | 4–96 h | ||||
HCoV | 229E | 103 | 21°C | 5 d | |
Silicon rubber | HCoV | 229E | 103 | 21°C | 5 d |
Wood | SARS-CoV | P9 | 105 | 21°C | 4 d |
Ceramic | HCoV | 229E | 103 | 21°C | 5 d |
Teflon | HCoV | 229E | 103 | 21°C | 5 d |
CCV: Canine coronavirus, HCoV: Human coronavirus, MHV: Mouse hepatitis virus, MERS-Cov: Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, RT: Room temperature, SARS-CoV: Severe Acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, TGEV: Transmissible gastroenteritis virus, d: Day(s), h: Hours(s), min: Minute(s)
Virus infectivity is defined as the ability of the virus to enter and colonize the host to replicate and reproduce itself with the potential to establish itself as an infection resulting in disease.[22] A previously suggested benchmark, a log10 viral reduction factor of more than 3, is considered as virucidal effectivity against viruses including coronaviruses on surfaces.[23] Formalin and ethanol used in low concentration (usually used as a preservative) decrease the viral infectivity to more than 3 log10.[22]
The effect of time and concentrations of various fixatives and biocidal agents on SARS and a few other viruses are summarized in Table 5. The table shows that for ethanol, 95% ethanol with SARS-CoV (Isolate FFM-1) for 30 s reduces the viral infectivity to more than 5.5 log10; 85% ethanol with SARS-CoV (Isolate FFM-1) for 30 s reduces the viral infectivity to more than 5.5 log10;[24] 80% ethanol with SARS-CoV (Isolate FFM-1) for 30 s reduces the viral infectivity to more than 4.3 log10;[24] 80% ethanol with MERS-CoV (Strain EMC) for 30 s reduces the viral infectivity to more than >4.0 log10;[25] 78% ethanol with SARS-CoV (Isolate FFM-1) for 30 s reduces the viral infectivity to more than 5.0 log10;[26] 70% ethanol with MHV (Strains MHV-2 and MHV-N) for 10 min reduces the viral infectivity to more than >3.9 log10;[27] and 70% ethanol with CCV (Strain I-71) for 10 min reduces the viral infectivity to more than >3.3 log10.[27]
Table 5:
Fixative/Biocidal agent | Concentration (%) | Virus | Strain/Isolate | Exposure time | Reduction of viralinfectivity (log10) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ethanol | 95 | SARS-CoV | FFM-1 | 30 s | >5.5 |
85 | SARS-CoV | FFM-1 | 30 s | >5.5 | |
80 | SARS-CoV | FFM-1 | 30 s | >4.3 | |
80 | SARS-CoV | EMC | 30 s | >4.0 | |
78 | SARS-CoV | FFM-1 | 30 s | >5.0 | |
70 | MHV | MHV-2 and MHV-N | 10 min | >3.9 | |
70 | CCV | I-71 | 10 min | >3.3 | |
Formaldehyde | 1% | SARS-CoV | FFM-1 | 2 min | > 3.0 |
0.7% | SARS-CoV | FFM-1 | 2 min | > 3.0 | |
0.7% | MHV | 10 min | > 3.5 | ||
0.7% | CCV | I-71 | 10 min | > 3.7 | |
0.009% | CCV | 24 h | > 4.0 | ||
Glutardialdehyde | 2.5% | SARS-CoV | Hanoi strain | 5 min | > 4.0 |
2.5% | SARS-CoV | FFM-1 | 2 min | > 4.0 | |
2-Propanol | 100% | SARS-CoV | FFM-1 | 30 s | >3.3 |
75% | SARS-CoV | FFM-1 | 30 s | >4.0 | |
75% | MERS-CoV | EMC | 30 s | >4.0 | |
70% | SARS-CoV | FFM-1 | 30 s | >3.3 | |
50% | MHV | MHV-2 & MHV-N | 10 min | >3.7 | |
50% | CCV | I-71 | 10 min | >3.7 | |
2-Propanol (a) and 1-propanol (b) | a-45% & b-30% | SARS-CoV | FFM-1 | 30 s | >4.3 |
SARS-CoV | FFM-1 | 30 s | >2.8 | ||
Sodium hypochlorite | 0.21% | MHV | MHV-1 | 30 s | >4.0 |
0.01% | MHV | MHV-2 & MHV-N | 10 min | 2.3-2.8 | |
0.01% | CCV | I-71 | 10 min | 1.1 | |
0.001% | MHV | MHV-2 & MHV-N | 10 min | 0.3-0.6 | |
0.001% | CCV | I-71 | 10 min | 0.9 | |
Hydrogen peroxide | 0.5% | HCoV | 229E | 1 min | > 4.0 |
Benzalkonium chloride | 0.2% | HCoV | ATCC VR-759 (strain OC43) | 10 min | 0.0 |
0.05% | MHV | MHV-2 & MHV-N | 10 min | >3.7 | |
0.05% | CCV | I-71 | 10 min | >3.7 | |
0.00175% | CCV | S378 | 3 d | 3.0 | |
Povidone-iodine | 7.5% | MERS-CoV | HCoV-EMC/2012 | 15 s | 4.6 |
4% | MERS-CoV | HCoV-EMC/2012 | 15 s | 5.0 | |
1% | SARS-CoV | Hanoi strain | 5 min | >4.0 | |
1% | SMES-CoV | HCoV-EMC/2012 | 15 s | 4.3 | |
0.47% | SARS-CoV | Hanoi strain | 1 min | 3.8 | |
0.25% | SARS-CoV | Hanoi strain | 1 min | >4.0 | |
0.23% | SARS-CoV | Hanoi strain | 1 min | >4.0 | |
0.23% | SARS-CoV | FFM-1 | 15 s | >4.4 | |
0.23% | MERS-CoV | HCoV-EMC/2012 | 15 s | >4.4 | |
Didecyldimethyl ammonium chloride | 0.0025% | CCV | S378 | 3 d | > 4.0 |
Chlorhexidine digluconate | 0.02% | MHV | MHV-2 & MHV-N | 10 min | 0.7-0.8 |
0.02% | CCV | I-71 | 10 min | 0.3 |
CCV: Canine coronavirus; HCoV: Human coronavirus; MHV: Mouse hepatitis virus; MERS-Cov: Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus; SARS-CoV: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus; min: Minute(s); s: Second(s)
Similarly for formalin, 1% formaldehyde with SARS-CoV (Isolate FFM-1) for 2 min reduces the viral infectivity to more than >3.0 log10;[26] 0.7% formaldehyde with SARS-CoV (Isolate FFM-1) for 2 min reduces the viral infectivity to more than >3.0 log10;[26] 0.7% formaldehyde with MHV for 10 min reduces the viral infectivity to more than >3.5 log10;[27] 0.7% formaldehyde with CCV (Strain I-71) for 10 min reduces the viral infectivity to more than >3.7 log10;[27] and 0.009% formaldehyde with CCV for 24 h reduces the viral infectivity to more than >4.0 log10[28] [Table 5].
About 95% ethanol reduces the viral infectivity to more than 5.5 in 30 s and formaldehyde even in the concentration of 1% decreased the viral infectivity to more than 3 in 2 min [Table 5].[22] Various reagents such as ethanol and 10% formalin (3.7% formaldehyde) usually used in cytopathology processing at initial stages as fixative have virucidal activity.[22] Based on the aforementioned, SARS-CoV-2 in any specimen processed with routine fixatives in cytopathology should be inactivated [Table 5].[22,29]
The data presented thus far suggest that the susceptibility to infection follows the bell curve, with an increase in the severity of the disease with the higher mortality in members of the population over 50 years.[30,31] This observation should be considered while organizing cytology laboratory services, namely, the potential effect on the personnel associated with various cytology services in regard to their potential for SARS-CoV-2 exposure.
A summary of recommendations for procedure specific protocols in routine cytopathology is enumerated in Table 6. These guidelines are recommended in addition to the WHO basic protective measures at a personal level [Table 2].[16] The virus survives on various plastic/metal surfaces, cardboards, disposable gowns, and paper surfaces for a significant amount of time [Table 5].[18,19,21,22,38] To avoid dissemination of the virus, it is recommended that on-site adequacy services should be canceled or postponed during the pandemic. In case a particular procedure is deemed necessary to be performed, the on-site personnel should follow the guidelines generated based on the information discussed in this review and summarized in Table 6.
Table 6:
Category/procedure | Measure(s) recommended *** |
---|---|
General cytopathology division | Routine standard precautions [Table 1].[14,15] In the case of SARS-CoV-2 suspected or known case-avoid exposure to older personnel over 60 years and personnel with compromised immunity. |
Cytoprep laboratory | Routine standard precautions [Table 1].[14,15] In cases suspected or positive for SARS-CoV-2 virus-perform the processing in certified Class II[35]Biological Safety Cabinet |
FNAB procedure | To minimize the risk of exposure with rapid dissemination of the virus, the “on-site adequacy evaluation services” may be suspended during COVID 19 pandemic related suspension of elective procedures.
** However, if FNAB has to be performed without on-site adequacy evaluation:
|
EUS-FNA procedure | Same guidelines as for “#3 FNAB procedure” with extra precaution, because the endoscopes travel through anatomical sites with the highest proportion of viruses in potentially positive cases, especially asymptomatic ones. |
Respiratory specimens such as bronchoalveolar lavage, bronchial lavage, bronchial brush, tracheal brush, sputum, and others such as rare percutaneous sampling of lung lesions | Routine Standard precautions [Table 1].[14,15] In cases suspected or positive for SARS-CoV-2 virus-perform the processing in certified Class II[35] Biological Safety Cabinet. |
Other body fluids such as peritoneal, pleural, pericardial, and other fluids (with potential positivity considered to be similar to blood positivity for SARS-CoV-2 virus) except urine | Routine Standard precautions [Table 1].[14,15] In cases suspected or positive for SARS-CoV-2 virus-perform the processing in certified Class II[35]Biological Safety Cabinet. |
Cell-block | Routine Standard precautions [Table 1].[14,15] In cases suspected or positive for SARS-CoV-2 virus-perform the processing in certified Class II[35]Biological Safety Cabinet Fix the cell-block for at least 2 h (for 2–3 mm thick cell-block material, formalin diffuses at the rate of 1 mm/h and 10% formalin (3.7% formaldehyde) would inactivate the virus in the interior of the cell- block). Most of the lab protocols require more than 6 h (up to 72 h) fixation.[29] |
All specimens received in 10% formalin and alcoholic fixatives | Routine Standard precautions [Table 1].[14,15]Concerning the surfaces of transport containers and paperwork, etc. In cases suspected or positive for SARS-CoV-2 virus-perform the processing in certified Class II[35]Biological Safety Cabinet. |
Splitting of specimens | Depending on individual institutional/laboratory protocols, some labs may split the specimen between various subspecialty labs. In such cases, the microbiology lab should split the specimen under microbiology precautions and send most of the specimen to the cytopathology lab for further processing. |
Air-drying both the direct smears spread between slides allows staining the smears with Diff-Quik and Pap stain (as saline-rehydrated alcohol-fixed air- dried smears).[40] The saline used for rehydration should be discarded as biological waste similar to other biological specimens. The air-dried smears are easy to be transported to Cytoprep lab in slide containers, which should be sanitized/disinfected by rinsing in 95% for 2–5 min, if the slide containers are reused.
If on-site adequacy evaluation services are resumed, all personnel associated with performing the procedure and performing the onsite adequacy service should follow Routine Standard precautions [Table 1].[14,15]
Modify as per local regulatory issues and geopolitical limitations based on general information reviewed in this editorial.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Preeti N. Malani, MD, MSJ, (Chief Health Officer and a Professor of Medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases, Associate Editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA) and Hossein Salimnia, Ph.D., (Professor, Division of Microbiology, Department of Pathology, Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, MI, USA) for the scientific review of the draft of this editorial.
We also thank Amy Conners, MS, CT (ASCP); Anjani Shidham, BS; Inderpreet Dhillon, MS, CT (ASCP); Anushree Shidham, BS; Ahmed Noorsaeed, MD (Cytopathology fellow); Aditya Shidham, MS; and Kathy Rost, Administrative Assistant, for their critical input in scientific draft editing. Their participation in improving this article is greatly appreciated.
The authors also thank “Webpage capture – Archive-today” https://archive.is/to archive some of the web references for permanent archival so that their original links may be inactive in the future.
The icon used for this article in HTML format is reproduced from:
Markie M. New collection ensures immediate access to the latest welcome- funded research in the global fight against COVID-19.
Long term URL: https://archive.is/wip/VTSph
COMPETING INTERESTS STATEMENT BY ALL AUTHORS
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Footnotes
How to cite this article: Shidham VB, Frisch NK, Layfield LJ. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (the cause of COVID 19) in different types of clinical specimens and implications for cytopathology specimen: An editorial review with recommendations. CytoJournal 2020;17:7.
AUTHORSHIP STATEMENT BY ALL AUTHORS
All authors of this article declare that we qualify for authorship as defined by ICMJE http://www.icmje.org/#author. Each author has participated sufficiently in the work and takes public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content of this article. VS conceived the idea, conducted literature review, and wrote the manuscript. All (VS, NF, and LL) critically reviewed the article. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (IN ALPHABETIC ORDER)
BSC: Biological safety cabinet
BSL-2: Biosafety level 2
CCV: Canine coronavirus
CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
COVID-19: Coronavirus Disease 2019
CT: Computerized tomography
D: day(s)
FNAB: Fine needle aspiration biopsy
H: hours(s)
HcoV: Human coronavirus
MERS-CoV: Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus
MHV: Mouse hepatitis virus
min: minute(s)
PCR: polymerase chain reaction
PPE: Personal protective equipment
rRT-PCR: Real-time reverse transcriptase–PCR
s: second(s)
SARS-CoV: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus
SARS-CoV-2: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
TGEV: transmissible gastroenteritis virus
WHO: World Health Organization
References
- 1.Tan W, Zhao X, Ma X, Wang W, Niu P, Xu W, et al. Notes from the field: A novel coronavirus genome identified in a cluster of pneumonia cases Wuhan, China 2019-2020. China CDC Wkly. 2020;2:61–62. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Chan JF, Yuan S, Kok KH, To KK, Chu H, Yang J, et al. A familial cluster of pneumonia associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus indicating person-to-person transmission: A study of a family cluster. Lancet. 2020;6736:30154–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30154-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Otter JA, Donskey C, Yezli S, Douthwaite S, Goldenberg SD, Weber DJ. Transmission of SARS and MERS coronaviruses and influenza virus in healthcare settings: The possible role of dry surface contamination. J Hosp Infect. 2016;92:235e50. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2015.08.027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Dowell SF, Simmerman JM, Erdman DD, Wu JS, Chaovavanich A, Javadi M, et al. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus on hospital surfaces. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39:652e7. doi: 10.1086/422652. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Geller C, Varbanov M, Duval RE. Human coronaviruses: Insights into environmental resistance and its influence on the development of new antiseptic strategies. Viruses. 2012;4:3044e68. doi: 10.3390/v4113044. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Kampf G. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2018. Antiseptic Stewardship: Biocide Resistance and Clinical Implications. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Li Q, Guan X, Wu P, Wang X, Zhou L, Tong Y, et al. Early transmission dynamics in Wuhan, China, of novel coronavirus infected pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1199–207. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001316. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Zhang W, Du RH, Li B, Zheng XS, Yang XL, Hu B, et al. Molecular and serological investigation of 2019-nCoV infected patients: Implication of multiple shedding routes. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020;9:386–9. doi: 10.1080/22221751.2020.1729071. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Wenling W, Yanli X, Ruqin G, Roujian L, Kai H, Guizhen W, et al. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in different types of clinical specimens. JAMA. 2020;11:3786. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3786. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel. Atlanta, Georgia: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2020. Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/Factsheet-for-Healthcare-Providers-2019-nCoV.pdf [Last accessed on 2020 April 09] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Krieger LM. Coronavirus False Test Results: With the Push to Screen Come Questions of Accuracy Reports of “False Negatives” Could Complicate Efforts to Control the Spread of COVID-19. The Mercury News. 2020 Available from: Original URL: https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/03/19/coronavirus-false-test-results-with-the-push-to-screen-come-questions-of-accuracy Long Term URL: https://www.archive.is/aclxp [Last accessed on 2020 April 09]
- 12.Ai T, Yang Z, Hou H, Zhan C, Chen C, Lv W, et al. Correlation of chest CT and RT-PCR testing in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China: A report of 1014 cases. Radiology. 2020;2020:200642. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020200642. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Jha S. False negative: COVID-19 Testing's Catch-22. 2020 Available from: Original URL: https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2020/03/false-negative-covid-19-testings-catch-22 Long Term URL: https://www.archive.is/LFin8 [Last accessed on 2020 April 09]
- 14.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . Atlanta, Georgia: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2016. Standard Precautions for All Patient Care. Available from: Original URL: https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/basics/standard-precautions Long Term URL: https://www.archive.is/wip/7uT69 [Last accessed on 2020 April 09] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . Atlanta, Georgia: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2016. Transmission- Based Precautions. Available from: Original URL: https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/basics/transmission-based-precautions Long Term URL: https://www.archive.is/wip/qSgsl [Last accessed on 2020 April 09] [Google Scholar]
- 16.World Health Organization Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) advice for the Public. Basic Protective Measures against the New Coronavirus. 2020 Available from: Original URL: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public Long Term URL: https://www.archive.is/DZuYq [Last accessed on 2020 Mar 18]
- 17.Henwood AF. Coronavirus disinfection in histopathology. J Histotechnol. 2020;2020:1–3. doi: 10.1080/01478885.2020.1734718. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Doremalen N, Bushmaker T, Morris DH, Holbrook MG, Gamble A, Williamson BN, et al. Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2004973. Available from: Original URL: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2004973pdf Long Term URL: https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMc2004973?articleTools=true [Last accessed on 2020 Mar 17] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 19.Chen YC, Huang LM, Chan CC, Su CP, Chang SC, Chang YY, et al. SARS in Hospital Emergency Room. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10:782–8. doi: 10.3201/eid1005.030579. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Gray R. We can Pick up the Covid-19 by Touching Surfaces Contaminated with the New Coronavirus, but it is only just becoming Clear how Long the Virus can Survive Outside the Human Body. BBC Future. 2020 Available from: Original URL: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200317-covid-19-how-long-does-the-coronavirus-last-on-surfaces Long Term URL: https://www.archive.is/nB8oM [Last accessed on 2020 Mar 17]
- 21.Volkin V. How long can the virus that causes COVID-19 live on surfaces? 2020 Available from: https://www.archive.is/wip/LFin8 [Last accessed on 2020 April 09]
- 22.Kampf G, Todt D, Pfaender S, Steinmann E. Persistence of coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces and their inactivation with biocidal agents. J Hosp Infect. 2020;104:246e251. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2020.01.022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Rachel L, Hulkower RL, Casanova LM, Rutala WA, Weber DJ, Sobsey MD. Inactivation of surrogate coronaviruses on hard surfaces by health care germicides. Am J Infect Control. 2011;39:401–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2010.08.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Rabenau HF, Kampf G, Cinatl J, Doerr HW. Efficacy of various disinfectants against SARS coronavirus. J Hosp Infect. 2005;61:107e11. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2004.12.023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Siddharta A, Pfaender S, Vielle NJ, Dijkman R, Friesland M, Becker B, et al. Virucidal activity of world health organizationrecommended formulations against enveloped viruses, including Zika, Ebola, and emerging coronaviruses. J Infect Dis. 2017;215:902e6. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jix046. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Rabenau HF, Cinatl J, Morgenstern B, Bauer G, Preiser W, Doerr HW. Stability and inactivation of SARS coronavirus. Med Microbiol Immunol. 2005;194:1e6. doi: 10.1007/s00430-004-0219-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Saknimit M, Inatsuki I, Sugiyama Y, Yagami K. Virucidal efficacy of physico-chemical treatments against coronaviruses and parvoviruses of laboratory animals. Jikken Dobutsu Exp Anim. 1988;37:341e5. doi: 10.1538/expanim1978.37.3_341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Pratelli A. Canine coronavirus inactivation with physical and chemical agents. Vet J (London England: 1997) 2008;177:71e9. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.03.019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Shidham VB. CellBlockistry: Chemistry and art of cell-block making a detailed review of various historical options with recent advances (review) CytoJournal. 2019;16:12. doi: 10.4103/cytojournal.cytojournal_20_19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Chodosh S. These Charts Show who is most Vulnerable to COVID-19. Popular Science. 2020 Available from: Original URL: https://www.popsci.com/story/health/covid-19-coronavirus-death-rate-by-age Long Term URL: https://www.archive.is/LTNe8 [Last accessed on 2020 April 09]
- 31.Matthews D. 11 Charts that Explain the Coronavirus Pandemic. 2020 Available from: Original URL: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/3/12/21172040/coronavirus-covid-19-virus-charts Long Term URL: https://www.archive.is/9Qmxe [Last accessed on 2020 Mar 17]
- 32.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . Atlanta, Georgia: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2019. Interim Laboratory Biosafety Guidelines for Handling and Processing Specimens Associated with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Available from: Original URL: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/lab/lab-biosafety-guidelines Long Term URL: https://www.archive.is/wip/5Ii97 [Last accessed on 2020 Mar 31] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . Atlanta, Georgia: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2019. Recognizing the Biosafety Level. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/training/quicklearns/biosafety [Last accessed on 2020 April 09] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . Atlanta, Georgia: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2020. Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Patients with Suspected or Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Healthcare Settings. Available from: Original URL: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/infection-control/control-recommendations Long Term URL: https://www.archive.is/0A5Ne [Last accessed on 2020 Mar 19] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Rijal N. Biological Safety Cabinet (BSC): Types and Working Mechanism. Microbe Online. 2019 Available from: Original URL: https://www.microbeonline.com/biological-safety-cabinet-bsc-types-working-mechanism Long Term URL: https://www.archive.is/G5u0G [Last accessed on 2019 Dec 05]
- 36.NHK World Japan (video) An NHK Experiment Found that Microdroplets Emitted while Sneezing and Coughing and During Conversations Stay in the Air for Longer than Normal Droplets, Potentially Posing a Uniquely Dangerous Risk for Coronavirus Infection. Shot in Cooperation with Shin Nippon Air Technologies. 2020 Available from: Original URL: https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/ataglance/844 Long Term URL: https://www.archive.is/XoI31 [Last accessed on 2020 Mar 31]
- 37.Canelli R, Connor CW, Gonzalez M, Nozari A, Ortega R. Barrier Enclosure during Endotracheal Intubation. 2020 doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2007589. Available from: Original URL: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007589 Long Term URL: https://www.archive.is/wip/427et [Last accessed on 2020 Apr 03] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 38.Nicas M, Best D. A study quantifying the hand-to-face contact rate and its potential application to predicting respiratory tract infection. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2008;5:347–52. doi: 10.1080/15459620802003896. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Kwok YL, Gralton J, McLaws ML. Face touching: A frequent habit that has implications for hand hygiene. Am J Infect Control. 2015;43:112–4. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2014.10.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Shidham V, Kampalath B, England J. Routine air drying of all the smears prepared during fine needle aspiration and intraoperative cytology studies: An opportunity to practice a unified protocol, offering the flexibility of choosing variety of staining methods. Acta Cytologica. 2001;45:60–8. doi: 10.1159/000327188. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]