Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30925029›Full record

ArticleInfluenza and other respiratory viruses2019

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.

Joana M Haussig, Angelina Targosz, Susanne Engelhart, Michael Herzhoff, Kerstin Prahm, Silke Buda, Andreas Nitsche, Walter Haas, Udo Buchholz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Influenza and other respiratory viruses, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Joana M HaussigDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5216-3472
Angelina TargoszCentre for Biological Threats and Special Pathogens, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.
Susanne EngelhartCentre for Biological Threats and Special Pathogens, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.
Michael HerzhoffDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.
Kerstin PrahmDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.
Silke BudaDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.
Andreas NitscheCentre for Biological Threats and Special Pathogens, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.
Walter HaasDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.
Udo BuchholzDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6597-3995
Robert Koch Institute · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInternet-based participatory surveillance systems, such as the German GrippeWeb, monitor the frequency of acute respiratory illnesses on population level. In order to interpret syndromic information better, we devised a microbiological feasibility study (GrippeWeb-Plus) to test whether self-collection of anterior nasal swabs is operationally possible, acceptable for participants and can yield valid data.

methodsWe recruited 103 GrippeWeb participants (73 adults and 30 children) and provided them with a kit, instructions and a questionnaire for each sample. In the first half of 2016, participants took an anterior nasal swab and sent it to the Robert Koch Institute whenever an acute respiratory illness occurred. Reporting of illnesses through the GrippeWeb platform continued as usual. We analysed swabs for the presence of human c-myc-DNA and 22 viral and bacterial pathogens. After the study, we sent participants an evaluation questionnaire. We analysed timeliness, completeness, acceptability and validity.

resultsOne hundred and two participants submitted 225 analysable swabs. Ninety per cent of swabs were taken within 3 days of symptom onset. Eighty-nine per cent of swabs had a corresponding reported illness in the GrippeWeb system. Ninety-nine per cent of adults and 96% of children would be willing to participate in a self-swabbing scheme for a longer period. All swabs contained c-myc-DNA. In 119 swabs, we identified any of 14 viruses but no bacteria. The positivity rate of influenza was similar to that in the German physician sentinel.

conclusionSelf-collection of anterior nasal swabs proofed to be feasible, was well accepted by participants, gave valid results and was an informative adjunct to syndromic data.

Indexed as

Epidemiological MonitoringAcute DiseaseAdultChildFeasibility StudiesGermanyHumansInfluenza, HumanNoseRespiratory Tract InfectionsSpecimen HandlingSurveys and QuestionnairesVirusesepidemiological monitoringhumaninfluenzapatient generated health datapublic health surveillancerespiratory tract infectionsself-swabbing

Identifiers

PMID30925029
PMCPMC6586186
OpenAlexW2929307235

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.