ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2019
Pigment Visibility on Rectal Swabs Used To Detect Enteropathogens: a Prospective Cohort Study.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of a Rapid Multiplex Gastrointestinal Panel with Standard Laboratory Testing in the Management of Children with Hematochezia in a Pediatric Emergency Department: Randomized Controlled Trial.Microbiology spectrum · 2023Trial
- Differences in Illness Severity among Circulating Norovirus Genotypes in a Large Pediatric Cohort with Acute Gastroenteritis.Microorganisms · 2020Article
- Rectal Swabs as an Alternative Sample Collection Method to Bulk Stool for the Real-Time PCR Detection ofThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2020Article
- Evaluation of the FecalSwab for Stool Specimen Storage and Molecular Detection of Enteropathogens on the BD Max System.Journal of clinical microbiology · 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
13 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Data are lacking regarding the impact of visible pigment on rectal swab diagnostic accuracy. We describe the test characteristics of rectal swabs with and without pigment in children with gastroenteritis. Between December 2014 and September 2017, children (age, <18 years) with ≥3 episodes of vomiting and/or diarrhea in a 24-h period and symptoms for <7 days were enrolled through two pediatric emergency departments and from a province-wide nursing telephone advice line in Alberta, Canada. Specimens were analyzed by employing nucleic acid amplification panels. The primary outcomes were the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for the rectal swabs, with stool specimen results being used as the reference standard. An enteropathogen was detected in 76.0% (1,399/1,841) of the paired specimens. A total of 54.4% (1,001/1841) of the swabs had visible pigment. The respective enteropathogen detection characteristics of swabs with and without visible pigment were as follows: 92.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.0%, 94.0%) versus 83.7% (95% CI, 80.5%, 86.4%) for sensitivity, 94.3% (95% CI, 90.5%, 96.6%) versus 91.2% (95% CI, 86.3%, 94.5%) for specificity, 97.9% (95% CI, 96.4%, 98.8%) versus 96.5% (95% CI, 94.5%, 97.8%) for PPV, and 80.9% (95% CI, 76.0%, 85.1%) versus 65.8% (95% CI, 60.0%, 71.1%) for NPV. Processing of swabs without visible pigment would increase the rate of identification of positive swabs from 50.0% (682/1,365) to 88.3% (1,205/1,365). There is a modest decrease in the reliability of a negative test on swabs without evidence of pigment, but the overall yield is significantly greater when they are not excluded from testing. Hence, rectal swabs without visible feces should not be routinely rejected from testing.
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.