Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22728277›Full record

ArticleJournal of virological methods2012

Comparison of nasopharyngeal flocked swabs and nasopharyngeal wash collection methods for respiratory virus detection in hospitalized children using real-time polymerase chain reaction.

Carolynn Debyle, Lisa Bulkow, Karen Miernyk, Lori Chikoyak, Kimberlee Boyd Hummel, Thomas Hennessy, Rosalyn Singleton

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of virological methods, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Influenza A infections: predictors of disease severity.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Point-of-care diagnostics for respiratory viral infections.Expert review of molecular diagnostics · 2018
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Rapid diagnosis of influenza: state of the art.Clinics in laboratory medicine · 2014
    Review
  20. Review
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.

Carolynn DebyleArctic Investigations Program, Division of Preparedness and Emerging Infections, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Anchorage, AK 99508, USA. cdebyle@cdc.gov
Lisa Bulkow
Karen Miernyk
Lori Chikoyak
Kimberlee Boyd Hummel
Thomas Hennessy
Rosalyn Singleton
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · USNational Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases · USYukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper describes the molecular detection of respiratory viruses from nasopharyngeal flocked swabs (flocked swabs) and nasopharyngeal washes (washes) in a clinical setting. Washes and flocked swabs collected from children<3 years old hospitalized with a lower respiratory tract infection were tested for parainfluenza virus 1-3, respiratory syncytial virus, influenza A and B and metapneumovirus (Group 1) and adenovirus, rhinovirus and coronavirus (Group 2) using real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (rRT-PCR). A consensuses standard was used to determine sensitivity and compare cycle thresholds (C(T)) of washes and flocked swabs for each virus and group of viruses. Sensitivities ranged from 79 to 89% and 69 to 94% for flocked swabs and washes, respectively, excluding AdV which had a sensitivity of 35% for flocked swabs. When the flocked swabs and washes of Group 1 viruses were collected on the day of admission, the sensitivity of both sample types was 100%. Wash specimens had a lower C(T) value and higher sensitivity than flocked swabs; however there was no statistical difference in the sensitivity of a flocked swab (89%) versus wash (93%) for the detection of Group 1 viruses, particularly when samples were collected on the same day. Flocked swabs may be a useful alternative to washes for detection of respiratory viruses in clinical settings.

Indexed as

Child, HospitalizedChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesNasopharynxReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionRespiratory Tract InfectionsSensitivity and SpecificitySpecimen HandlingVirology

Identifiers

PMID22728277
PMCPMC4655598
OpenAlexW2009800837

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.