ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2013
A comparison of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabbing for the detection of influenza virus by real-time PCR.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Respiratory Specimen Collection Methods for Detection of Influenza Virus Infection by Reverse Transcription-PCR: a Literature Review.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2019Pooled it
- Practical Guidance for Clinical Microbiology Laboratories: Viruses Causing Acute Respiratory Tract Infections.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2019Guideline
- Accuracy of comprehensive PCR analysis of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for CT-scan-confirmed pneumonia in elderly patients: a prospective cohort study.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2019Trial
- Combined nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal sampling improves pathogen detection in community-acquired pneumonia.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Comparing SARS-CoV-2 Testing in Anterior Nasal Vestibular Swabs vs. Oropharyngeal Swabs.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021Article
- Nasopharyngeal Swabs Are More Sensitive Than Oropharyngeal Swabs for COVID-19 Diagnosis and Monitoring the SARS-CoV-2 Load.Frontiers in medicine · 2020Article
- Pathogens Causing Respiratory Tract Infections in Children Less Than 5 Years of Age in Senegal.Microbiology insights · 2019Article
- Influenza and respiratory syncytial virus screening for the detection of asymptomatically infected patients in hematology and oncology.GMS hygiene and infection control · 2018Article
- Covid-19 and ENT practice: Our experience: ENT outpatient department, ward and operating room management during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.American journal of otolaryngologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We tested the hypothesis that swabs from the nasopharynx carry a higher viral load than swabs from the oropharynx in patients with real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed influenza infection. Using flocked swabs, oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal samples were harvested from hospital-admitted influenza patients no later than 3 days after the initial detection of influenza virus. Comparison of cycle threshold (CT) values was performed to assess differences in viral load in the specimens. Seventeen patients were diagnosed with influenza B, 14 patients with influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, and one patient with influenza A(H3N2). Nasopharyngeal samples were positive at a lower CT value than the oropharyngeal samples [mean difference in CT 5.75, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 3.8-7.7, p < 0.01], suggesting that, on average, the calculated viral load of the nasopharyngeal samples was 54 times higher (95 % CI 13.7-210.8) than those of the oropharyngeal samples. The corresponding difference in the calculated viral load for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus was 23 times (95 % CI 3.8-136.2, p < 0.01) and for influenza B virus, it was 80 times (95 % CI 9.3-694.6, p < 0.01). In patients with acute influenza, nasopharyngeal swabbing was clearly superior to oropharyngeal swabbing in terms of diagnostic yield by real-time PCR.
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.