ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2018
Self-Swabbing for Virological Confirmation of Influenza-Like Illness Among an Internet-Based Cohort in the UK During the 2014-2015 Flu Season: Pilot Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Participant self-collected versus research coordinator-collected nasal swabs for respiratory viral surveillance following influenza-like illness.Frontiers in public health · 2026Trial
- Patient-reported outcomes and home-based self-swabs for influenza-like illness events - lessons learned from the 2023/2024 DANFLU-2 Homeswab PRO substudy.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Trial
- The Pandemic Respiratory Virus Epidemiological Surveillance Trial - A Self-swab Surveillance System for Respiratory Viruses Nested Within FluTracking.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Article
- HIV Digital Vaccine Strategy: Proposal for Applying Blockchain in Preventing the Spread of HIV.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- 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
- Evaluation of Specimen Types and Saliva Stabilization Solutions for SARS-CoV-2 Testing.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2021Article
- Evaluating Specimen Quality and Results from a Community-Wide, Home-Based Respiratory Surveillance Study.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2021Article
- SARS-CoV-2 infection in London, England: changes to community point prevalence around lockdown time, March-May 2020.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2021Article
- Article
- An Online Influenza Surveillance System for Primary Care Workers in Switzerland: Observational Prospective Pilot Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2020Observational
- Feasibility study for the use of self-collected nasal swabs to identify pathogens among participants of a population-based surveillance system for acute respiratory infections (GrippeWeb-Plus)-Germany, 2016.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2019Article
- Unsupervised extraction of epidemic syndromes from participatory influenza surveillance self-reported symptoms.PLoS computational biology · 2019Article
- The potential value of crowdsourced surveillance systems in supplementing sentinel influenza networks: the case of France.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2018Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRoutine influenza surveillance, based on laboratory confirmation of viral infection, often fails to estimate the true burden of influenza-like illness (ILI) in the community because those with ILI often manage their own symptoms without visiting a health professional. Internet-based surveillance can complement this traditional surveillance by measuring symptoms and health behavior of a population with minimal time delay. Flusurvey, the UK's largest crowd-sourced platform for surveillance of influenza, collects routine data on more than 6000 voluntary participants and offers real-time estimates of ILI circulation. However, one criticism of this method of surveillance is that it is only able to assess ILI, rather than virologically confirmed influenza.
objectiveWe designed a pilot study to see if it was feasible to ask individuals from the Flusurvey platform to perform a self-swabbing task and to assess whether they were able to collect samples with a suitable viral content to detect an influenza virus in the laboratory.
methodsVirological swabbing kits were sent to pilot study participants, who then monitored their ILI symptoms over the influenza season (2014-2015) through the Flusurvey platform. If they reported ILI, they were asked to undertake self-swabbing and return the swabs to a Public Health England laboratory for multiplex respiratory virus polymerase chain reaction testing.
resultsA total of 700 swab kits were distributed at the start of the study; from these, 66 participants met the definition for ILI and were asked to return samples. In all, 51 samples were received in the laboratory, 18 of which tested positive for a viral cause of ILI (35%).
conclusionsThis demonstrated proof of concept that it is possible to apply self-swabbing for virological laboratory testing to an online cohort study. This pilot does not have significant numbers to validate whether Flusurvey surveillance accurately reflects influenza infection in the community, but highlights that the methodology is feasible. Self-swabbing could be expanded to larger online surveillance activities, such as during the initial stages of a pandemic, to understand community transmission or to better assess interseasonal activity.
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.