ArticleBMC infectious diseases2013
Mailed versus frozen transport of nasal swabs for surveillance of respiratory bacteria in remote Indigenous communities in Australia.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Respiratory Specimen Collection Trial (ReSpeCT): A Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare Quality and Timeliness of Respiratory Sample Collection in the Home by Parents and Healthcare Workers From Children Aged <2 Years.Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society · 2020Trial
- Trial
- Nasal swab bacteriology by PCR during the first 24-months of life: A prospective birth cohort study.Pediatric pulmonology · 2019Observational
- Upper airway viruses and bacteria in urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in Brisbane, Australia: a cross-sectional study.BMC infectious diseases · 2017Article
- Prevalence, codetection and seasonal distribution of upper airway viruses and bacteria in children with acute respiratory illnesses with cough as a symptom.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurveillance programs and research for acute respiratory infections in remote Australian communities are complicated by difficulties in the storage and transport of frozen samples to urban laboratories for testing. This study assessed the sensitivity of a simple method for transporting nasal swabs from a remote setting for bacterial polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing.
methodsWe sampled every individual who presented to a remote community clinic over a three week period in August at a time of low influenza and no respiratory syncytial virus activity. Two anterior nasal swabs were collected from each participant. The left nare specimen was mailed to the laboratory via routine postal services. The right nare specimen was transported frozen. Testing for six bacterial species was undertaken using real-time PCR.
resultsOne hundred and forty participants were enrolled who contributed 150 study visits and paired specimens for testing. Respiratory illnesses accounted for 10% of the reasons for presentation. Bacteria were identified in 117 (78%) presentations for 110 (79.4%) individuals; Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae were the most common (each identified in 58% of episodes). The overall sensitivity for any bacterium detected in mailed specimens was 82.2% (95% CI 73.6, 88.1) compared to 94.8% (95% CI 89.4, 98.1) for frozen specimens. The sensitivity of the two methods varied by species identified.
conclusionThe mailing of unfrozen nasal specimens from remote communities appears to influence the utility of the specimen for bacterial studies, with a loss in sensitivity for the detection of any species overall. Further studies are needed to confirm our finding and to investigate the possible mechanisms of effect. CLINICAL
trial registrationAustralia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Number: ACTRN12609001006235.
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.