Trial reportJournal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society2020
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.
Trial report in Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00966069 (ReSPeCT), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 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.
ReSPeCT: An Unblinded, Randomised, Controlled Trial to Compare Respiratory Sample Collection by a Parent or by a Healthcare Worker at a Home Visit
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility of a hybrid clinical trial for respiratory virus detection in toddlers during the influenza season.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Trial
- Prevalence of human respiratory pathogens and associated mucosal cytokine levels in young children and adults: a cross-sectional observational study in the Netherlands during the winter of 2012/2013.Pathogens and disease · 2024Observational
- Association of rhinovirus and potentially pathogenic bacterial detections in the first 3 months of life with subsequent wheezing in childhood.Pediatric pulmonology · 2023Article
- 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
- Assessing the use of minimally invasive self-sampling at home for long-term monitoring of the microbiota within UK families.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Human bocavirus-1 infections in Australian children aged < 2 years: a birth cohort study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2023Article
- Requirements and Study Designs for U.S. Regulatory Approval of Influenza Home Tests.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2022Review
- Prospective Study of the Performance of Parent-Collected Nasal and Saliva Swab Samples, Compared with Nurse-Collected Swab Samples, for the Molecular Detection of Respiratory Microorganisms.Microbiology spectrum · 2021Observational
- Epidemiology of respiratory syncytial virus in a community birth cohort of infants in the first 2 years of life.European journal of pediatrics · 2021Article
- Willingness to Seek Diagnostic Testing for SARS-CoV-2 With Home, Drive-through, and Clinic-Based Specimen Collection Locations.Open forum infectious diseases · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost acute respiratory infection (ARI) research focuses on severe disease and overlooks the burden of community-managed illness. For community-based studies, home-based specimen collection by parents could be a resource-saving alternative to collection by healthcare workers (HCWs). In this study, we compared parent and HCW groups for their likelihood to collect specimens and the timeliness and quality of such collection.
methodsIn this unblinded randomized controlled trial, parents from Brisbane, Australia, were taught to identify new ARI episodes in their children aged <2 years. When their child had a new ARI, parents either collected a nasal swab from the child (P group) or contacted an HCW who visited to obtain a nasopharyngeal swab (HCW group). We compared the likelihood and timeliness of specimen collection and respiratory pathogen detection. A nested diagnostic study compared paired specimen collections from children in the HCW group.
resultsIncluded were 76 incident ARI episodes from 31 children and 102 episodes from 33 children in the P and HCW groups, respectively. The proportions of ARIs for which a specimen was collected were similar (P group, 69.7%; HCW group, 72.5%; P = .77), and pathogens were detected in 93.8% and 77.5% of the specimens, respectively (P = .03). The period between ARI onset and specimen collection was shorter in the P group than in the HCW group (mean difference, 1.9 days [95% confidence interval, 0.7-3.0 days]; P < .001). For the 69 paired specimens, viral loads were lower in the parent-collected swabs (mean cycle threshold difference, 4.5 [95% confidence interval, 3.1-5.9]; P < .001).
conclusionsParents and HCWs obtained samples in similar proportions of ARI episodes, but the parents collected the samples fewer days after ARI onset and with a resulting higher likelihood of pathogen identification. This method can be used in population-based epidemiological studies of ARI as a resource-saving alternative.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00966069.
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.