ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2006
Nasopharyngeal versus oropharyngeal sampling for isolation of potential respiratory pathogens in adults.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
28 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic utility of oropharyngeal swabs as an alternative to lower respiratory tract samples for PCR-based syndromic testing in patients with community-acquired pneumonia.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2023Trial
- Clinical relevance of bacterial resistance in lower respiratory tract infection in primary care: secondary analysis of a multicentre European trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018Trial
- Disease Course of Lower Respiratory Tract Infection With a Bacterial Cause.Annals of family medicine · 2016Trial
- Access to a polymerase chain reaction assay method targeting 13 respiratory viruses can reduce antibiotics: a randomised, controlled trial.BMC medicine · 2011Trial
- Kinetic profile and mucosal capsular polysaccharide IgG responses to serotype 3 pneumococcus in the adult oropharynx following an experimental human challenge.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Combined nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal sampling improves pathogen detection in community-acquired pneumonia.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Carriage ofJournal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada = Journal officiel de l'Association pour la microbiologie medicale et l'infectiologie Canada · 2024Article
- Exploring the microbial landscape: uncovering the pathogens associated with community-acquired pneumonia in hospitalized patients.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Utility of Polymerase Chain Reaction in Nasopharyngeal Swabs for Identifying Respiratory Bacteria Causing Community-Acquired Pneumonia.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- A comprehensive map of microbial biomarkers along the gastrointestinal tract for celiac disease patients.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- The nose is the best niche for detection of experimental pneumococcal colonisation in adults of all ages, using nasal wash.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Performing nasopharyngeal swabs-Guidelines based on an anatomical study.Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.) · 2021Article
- The microbiome of the nasopharynx.Journal of medical microbiology · 2021Review
- Oropharyngeal Carriage ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Rapid Fabrication of Sterile Medical Nasopharyngeal Swabs by Stereolithography for Widespread Testing in a Pandemic.Advanced engineering materials · 2020Article
- Limited Added Value of Oropharyngeal Swabs for Detecting Pneumococcal Carriage in Adults.Open forum infectious diseases · 2020Article
- The Challenges of Using Oropharyngeal Samples To Measure Pneumococcal Carriage in Adults.mSphere · 2020Article
- Critical evaluation of FDA-approved respiratory multiplex assays for public health surveillance.Expert review of molecular diagnostics · 2018Review
- Utility of oropharyngeal real-time PCR for S. pneumoniae and H. influenzae for diagnosis of pneumonia in adults.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2017Article
- Dental and microbiological risk factors for hospital-acquired pneumonia in non-ventilated older patients.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The optimal methodology for the identification of colonization by potential respiratory pathogens (PRP) in adults is not well established. The objectives of the present study were to compare the sensitivities of sampling the nasopharynx and the oropharynx for identification of PRP colonization and to compare the sensitivities of samples from the nasopharynx by swab and by washing for the same purpose. The study included 500 participants with a mean age of 65.1 +/- 17.8 years. Of these, 300 patients were hospitalized for acute febrile lower respiratory tract infection and 200 were controls. Each participant was sampled by oropharyngeal swab (OPS), nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), and nasopharyngeal washing (NPW). The samples were tested by conventional bacteriological methods to identify Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. OPS detected colonization by S. pneumoniae in 30% of the subjects compared with 89% by NPS and NPW (P < 0.000001). The corresponding rates for H. influenzae were 49% and 64%, respectively (no significant difference [NS]), and for M. catarrhalis were 72% and 46%, respectively (P < 0.0004). NPS identified 61% of the cases of colonization with S. pneumoniae, compared with 76% by NPW (NS). The corresponding rates for H. influenzae were 31% and 56%, respectively (P < 0.04), and for M. catarrhalis were 39% and 33%, respectively (NS). We conclude that the sensitivities of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal sampling for identification of PRP colonization in adults are different for each of the three bacteria in this category. The combined results of sampling from both sites are necessary to obtain a true picture of the rate of colonization. NPW is superior to NPS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.