Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32718896›Full record

SynthesisEBioMedicine2020

SARS-CoV-2 detection in different respiratory sites: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abbas Mohammadi, Elmira Esmaeilzadeh, Yijia Li, Ronald J Bosch, Jonathan Z Li

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in EBioMedicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

80 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Prospective, clinical comparison of self-collected throat-bilateral nares swabs and saline gargle compared to health care provider collected nasopharyngeal swabs among symptomatic outpatients with potential SARS-CoV-2 infection.Journal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada = Journal officiel de l'Association pour la microbiologie medicale et l'infectiologie Canada · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Screening and confirmation tests for SARS-CoV-2: benefits and drawbacks.Beni-Suef University journal of basic and applied sciences · 2023
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Abbas MohammadiBrigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Elmira EsmaeilzadehBrigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Yijia LiBrigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Ronald J BoschHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Jonathan Z LiBrigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: jli@bwh.harvard.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 through respiratory sampling is critical for the prevention of further transmission and the timely initiation of treatment for COVID-19. There is a diverse range of SARS-CoV-2 detection rates in reported studies, with uncertainty as to the optimal sampling strategy for COVID-19 diagnosis and monitoring.

methodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing respiratory sampling strategies for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The inclusion criteria were studies that assessed at least two respiratory sampling sites (oropharyngeal swab, nasopharyngeal swab, and sputum) in participants with COVID-19. The percentage positive tests were compared between sampling modalities by constructing a Z-test assuming independence and using the standard errors obtained from the random effects meta-analysis.

findingsFrom 1039 total studies, we identified 11 studies that met our inclusion criteria, with SARS-CoV-2 testing results from a total of 3442 respiratory tract specimens. Compared to nasopharyngeal swab sampling, sputum testing resulted in significantly higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection while oropharyngeal swab testing had lower rates of viral RNA detection. Earlier sampling after symptom onset was associated with improved detection rates, but the differences in SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection by sampling method was consistent regardless of the duration of symptoms.

interpretationThe results support sputum sampling as a valuable method of COVID-19 diagnosis and monitoring, and highlight the importance of early testing after symptom onset to increase the rates of COVID-19 diagnosis.

fundingThis study was funded in part by the NIH grants U01AI106701 and by the Harvard University for AIDS Research (NIAID 5P30AI060354).

Indexed as

BetacoronavirusCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Databases, FactualHumansNasopharynxOropharynxPandemicsPneumonia, ViralRNA, ViralSARS-CoV-2SputumRNA, ViralCOVID-19DiagnosisNasopharyngealOropharyngealSARS-CoV-2Sputum

Identifiers

PMID32718896
PMCPMC7380223

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.