ArticleClinical epidemiology2016
Pilot study of participant-collected nasal swabs for acute respiratory infections in a low-income, urban population.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Acceptability, Feasibility, and Validity of Detecting Respiratory Pathogens During Acute Respiratory Illness in Participant-Collected Swabs in a Low-Income, Community Sample.Open forum infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Side-by-side comparison of parent vs. technician-collected respiratory swabs in low-income, multilingual, urban communities in the United States.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Household transmission of influenza A and B within a prospective cohort during the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 seasons.Statistics in medicine · 2021Article
- Home collection of nasal swabs for detection of influenza in the Household Influenza Vaccine Evaluation Study.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2021Article
- Evolution of Specimen Self-Collection in the COVID-19 Era: Implications for Population Health Management of Infectious Disease.Population health management · 2021Review
- Active surveillance for acute respiratory infections among pediatric long-term care facility staff.American journal of infection control · 2020Article
- Self-Sampling of Oropharyngeal Swabs Among Healthcare Workers for Molecular Detection of Respiratory Viruses: A Valuable Approach for Epidemiological Studies and Surveillance Programs.Frontiers in public health · 2020Article
- Article
- The association between anterior nares and nasopharyngeal microbiota in infants hospitalized for bronchiolitis.Microbiome · 2018Article
- Letter to the editor.Clinical epidemiology · 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the feasibility and validity of unsupervised participant-collected nasal swabs to detect respiratory pathogens in a low-income, urban minority population.
methodsThis project was conducted as part of an ongoing community-based surveillance study in New York City to identify viral etiologies of acute respiratory infection. In January 2014, following sample collection by trained research assistants, participants with acute respiratory infection from 30 households subsequently collected and returned a self-collected/parent-collected nasal swab via mail. Self/parental swabs corresponding with positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction primary research samples were analyzed.
resultsNearly all (96.8%, n=30/31) households agreed to participate; 100% reported returning the sample and 29 were received (median time: 8 days). Most (18; 62.1%) of the primary research samples were positive. For eight influenza-positive research samples, seven (87.5%) self-swabs were also positive. For ten other respiratory pathogen-positive research samples, eight (80.0%) self-swabs were positive. Sensitivity of self-swabs for any respiratory pathogen was 83.3% and 87.5% for influenza, and specificity for both was 100%. There was no relationship between level of education and concordance of results between positive research samples and their matching participant swab.
conclusionIn this pilot study, self-swabbing was feasible and valid in a low-income, urban minority population.
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.