ArticlePloS one2012
Equivalence of self- and staff-collected nasal swabs for the detection of viral respiratory pathogens.
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 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
46 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Upper Airway Swab Collection for Detection of Viral and Bacterial Pathogens by Individuals or Caregivers Compared to Health Care Workers.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2021Pooled it
- Practical Guidance for Clinical Microbiology Laboratories: Viruses Causing Acute Respiratory Tract Infections.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2019Guideline
- Feasibility of a hybrid clinical trial for respiratory virus detection in toddlers during the influenza season.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Trial
- The Pandemic Respiratory Virus Epidemiological Surveillance Trial - A Self-swab Surveillance System for Respiratory Viruses Nested Within FluTracking.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Self-testing for 5 respiratory viruses in adult VACCELERATE volunteers in Germany-a pilot study on multi-pathogen rapid antigen testing to monitor community-acquired acute respiratory infections.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Home-Based Testing as an Approach to Estimate Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in South Africa, 2021-2022-A Pilot Study.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2024Article
- Article
- Impact of Swabbing Location, Self-Swabbing, and Food Intake on SARS-CoV-2 RNA Detection.Microorganisms · 2024Article
- Autonomous swab robot for naso- and oropharyngeal COVID-19 screening.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of Self-Collected, Ambient Temperature-Preserved Nasal Swabs Compared to Samples Collected by Trained Staff for Genotyping of Respiratory Viruses by Shotgun RNA Sequencing: Comparative Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Pandemic driven innovation: A pilot evaluation of an alternative respiratory pathogen collection device.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2022Article
- The impact of a rapid home test on telehealth decision-making for influenza: a clinical vignette study.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the Practicability of Biosynex Antigen Self-Test COVID-19 AG+ for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Protein from Self-Collected Nasal Mid-Turbinate Secretions in the General Public in France.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Reduced sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing with single-nostril nasal swabs.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2021Article
- Evaluating an app-guided self-test for influenza: lessons learned for improving the feasibility of study designs to evaluate self-tests for respiratory viruses.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Article
- Sample Adequacy Control (SAC) Lowers False Negatives and Increases the Quality of Screening: Introduction of "Non-Competitive" SAC for qPCR Assays.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Excellent option for mass testing during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: painless self-collection and direct RT-qPCR.Virology journal · 2021Article
- Performance of Unobserved Self-Collected Nasal Swabs for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR Utilizing a Remote Specimen Collection Strategy.Open forum infectious diseases · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe need for the timely collection of diagnostic biosamples during symptomatic episodes represents a major obstacle to large-scale studies on acute respiratory infection (ARI) epidemiology. This may be circumvented by having the participants collect their own nasal swabs. We compared self- and staff-collected swabs in terms of swabbing quality and detection of viral respiratory pathogens. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsWe conducted a prospective study among employees of our institution during the ARI season 2010/2011 (December-March). Weekly emails were sent to the participants (n = 84), reminding them to come to the study center in case of new symptoms. The participants self-collected an anterior nasal swab from one nostril, and trained study personnel collected one from the other nostril. The participants self-collected another two swabs (one from each nostril) on a subsequent day. Human β-actin DNA concentration was determined in the swabs as a quality control. Viral respiratory pathogens were detected by multiplex RT-PCR (Seeplex RV15 kit, Seegene, Eschborn, Germany). Of 84 participants, 56 (67%) reported at least one ARI episode, 18 participants two, and one participant three. Self-swabbing was highly accepted by the participants. The amount of β-actin DNA per swab was higher in the self- than in the staff-collected swabs (p = 0.008). β-actin concentration was lower in the self-swabs collected on day 1 than in those collected on a subsequent day (p<0.0001). A respiratory viral pathogen was detected in 31% (23/75) of staff- and in 35% (26/75) of self-collected swabs (p = 0.36). With both approaches, the most frequently identified pathogens were human rhinoviruses A/B/C (12/75 swabs, 16%) and human coronavirus OC43 (4/75 swabs, 5%). There was almost perfect agreement between self- and staff-collected swabs in terms of pathogen detection (agreement = 93%, kappa = 0.85, p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Nasal self-swabbing for identification of viral ARI pathogens proved to be equivalent to staff-swabbing in this population in terms of acceptance and pathogen detection.
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.