Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20111881›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2010

Detection of multiple respiratory pathogens during primary respiratory infection: nasal swab versus nasopharyngeal aspirate using real-time polymerase chain reaction.

T J Meerhoff, M L Houben, F E J Coenjaerts, J L L Kimpen, R W Hofland, F Schellevis, L J Bont

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

T J MeerhoffNIVEL: Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, The Netherlands. t.meerhoff@nivel.nl
M L Houben
F E J Coenjaerts
J L L Kimpen
R W Hofland
F Schellevis
L J Bont
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLNederlandse Vereniging voor Kindergeneeskunde · NLNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this study, we present the multiple detection of respiratory viruses in infants during primary respiratory illness, investigate the sensitivity of nasal swabs and nasopharyngeal aspirates, and assess whether patient characteristics and viral load played a role in the sensitivity. Healthy infants were included at signs of first respiratory tract infection. Paired nasopharyngeal aspirates and nasal swabs were collected. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was carried out for 11 respiratory pathogens. Paired nasopharyngeal aspirates and nasal swabs were collected in 98 infants. Rhinovirus (n = 67) and respiratory syncytial virus (n = 39) were the most frequently detected. Co-infection occurred in 48% (n = 45) of the infants. The sensitivity of the nasal swab was lower than the nasopharyngeal aspirate, in particular, for respiratory syncytial virus (51% vs. 100%) and rhinovirus (75% vs. 97%). The sensitivity of the nasal swab was strongly determined by the cycle threshold (CT) value (p < 0.001). The sensitivity of the swab for respiratory syncytial virus, but not rhinovirus, was 100% in children with severe symptoms (score >or=11). It is concluded that, for community-based studies and surveillance purposes, the nasal swab can be used, though the sensitivity is lower than the aspirate, in particular, for the detection of mild cases of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection.

Indexed as

ComorbidityFemaleHumansInfantMaleNasopharynxNosePolymerase Chain ReactionRespiratory Tract InfectionsSensitivity and SpecificityViral LoadVirus DiseasesViruses

Identifiers

PMID20111881
PMCPMC2840676
OpenAlexW2097390671

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.