Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12409425›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2002

Nasal swab versus nasopharyngeal aspirate for isolation of respiratory viruses.

Terho Heikkinen, Jane Marttila, Aimo A Salmi, Olli Ruuskanen

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

93 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 242 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Guideline
  5. Guideline
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Terho HeikkinenDepartment of Pediatrics, Turku University Hospital. Department of Virology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. terho.heikkinen@utu.fi
Jane Marttila
Aimo A Salmi
Olli Ruuskanen
Turku University Hospital · FIUniversity of Turku · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To determine the usefulness of nasal swabs as a simple method for detection of respiratory viruses, we compared nasal swabs and nasopharyngeal aspirates obtained at the same time from the opposite nostrils of 230 children with upper respiratory infection. The sensitivity of nasal swabs was comparable to that of nasopharyngeal aspirates for the detection of all major respiratory viruses except respiratory syncytial virus.

Indexed as

AdolescentChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleMucusNasopharynxNoseRespiratory Syncytial Virus, HumanRespiratory Syncytial Virus InfectionsRespiratory Tract InfectionsSensitivity and SpecificitySpecimen Handling

Identifiers

PMID12409425
PMCPMC139631
OpenAlexW2118730314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.