Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32166638›Full record

ArticleAMB Express2020

The influence of a swab type on the results of point-of-care tests.

Aleksandra Anna Zasada, Katarzyna Zacharczuk, Katarzyna Woźnica, Małgorzata Główka, Robert Ziółkowski, Elżbieta Malinowska

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AMB Express, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. ACS omega · 2022
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Aleksandra Anna ZasadaDepartment of Sera and Vaccines Evaluation, National Institute of Public Health-National Institute of Hygiene, Warsaw, Poland. azasada@pzh.gov.pl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2774-0941
Katarzyna ZacharczukDepartment of Bacteriology and Biocontamination Control, National Institute of Public Health-National Institute of Hygiene, Warsaw, Poland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1476-2172
Katarzyna WoźnicaDepartment of Sera and Vaccines Evaluation, National Institute of Public Health-National Institute of Hygiene, Warsaw, Poland.
Małgorzata GłówkaDepartment of Sera and Vaccines Evaluation, National Institute of Public Health-National Institute of Hygiene, Warsaw, Poland.
Robert ZiółkowskiFaculty of Chemistry, The Chair of Medical Biotechnology, Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7225-0904
Elżbieta MalinowskaFaculty of Chemistry, The Chair of Medical Biotechnology, Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4784-7674
Narodowy Instytut Zdrowia Publicznego PZH – Państwowy Instytut Badawczy · PLWarsaw University of Technology · PL

Funding

Narodowe Centrum Badań i Rozwoju LIDER/35/0041/L-7/NCBR/2016Narodowe Centrum Nauki (PL) UMO-2014/15/B/NZ6/01771
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most point-of-care tests (POCT) use swabs for sampling and/or for applying a sample on the test. A variety of swabs differing in tip materials is commercially available. Different tip materials have different chemical and physical characteristics which might influence the specimen collection and release. We investigated properties of various types of swabs used in clinical diagnostics with focusing on two kinds of analytes, DNA and proteins, which are most often used targets in POCT. As the model samples we used diphtheria toxoid NIBSC 69/017 for investigating recovery of protein analytes such as antigens and bacterial strains of Escherichia coli ATCC 25922, diphtheria toxin-producing Corynebacterium diphtheriae NCTC 10648, and the clinical isolate nontoxigenic C. diphtheriae 5820/15 for investigating the recovery of nucleic acids. We investigated four types of swabs most commonly used in clinical diagnostics in terms of absorption capacity and efficiency of release of nucleic acids and proteins. Volume uptake was measured in milligrams. For DNA release various washing out buffers were used and the amount of released DNA was measured spectrophotometrically. The amount of protein released from the swabs were examined using the Lowry assay. We observed statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in the mean weights of absorbed liquid, in the DNA recovery and protein recovery by the four variety of swab examined. However, the efficiency of DNA and protein release was not correlated to the absorbed volume of a sample, but rather to the properties of swabs. The swab composition and structure can have a significant impact on the collection and release efficiency of a sample. Therefore, validation of POCT in relation to the used swabs for sampling is really important. The use of inappropriate swabs could lead to false negative or misleading analysis results.

Indexed as

Clinical diagnosticsPOCTSample collectionSwabs

Identifiers

PMID32166638
PMCPMC7067933
OpenAlexW3012005821

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.