ArticleOTO open
Assessing the Impact of a Training Initiative for Nasopharyngeal and Oropharyngeal Swabbing for COVID-19 Testing.
Article in OTO open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determining the New Norm Elements in Emergency Departments in Malaysia During a Pandemic: A Fuzzy Delphi Method.The Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS · 2024Article
- Valid and Reliable Assessment of Upper Respiratory Tract Specimen Collection Skills during the COVID-19 Pandemic.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Discrepancy of SARS-CoV-2 PCR results due to the sample collection sites and possible improper sampling.Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy · 2021Article
- Role of the otolaryngologist in nasopharyngeal swab training: A case report and review of the literature.Otolaryngology case reports · 2021Article
- The role of educating health-care personnel in prevention, diagnosis, or treatment of COVID-19: A narrative mini review.Journal of education and health promotion · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe accuracy and reliability of COVID-19 testing are critical to limit transmission. After observing variability in testing techniques, we otolaryngologists at a tertiary medical center initiated and evaluated the impact of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabbing training, including video instruction, to standardize sampling techniques and ensure high-quality specimens.
methodsParticipants in the training were employees (N = 40). Training consisted of an instructional video on how to perform nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs and a live demonstration. Participants completed pre- and posttraining surveys assessing their knowledge and confidence in performing nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs. They then performed swabbing on partners, which was graded per a standardized checklist.
resultsMean scores for knowledge-based questions and confidence in swabbing were significantly higher after the training session (both DISCUSSION: Specialized instruction for nasopharyngeal swabbing improved participants' knowledge-specifically, the appropriate head position and minimum swab time in nasopharynx-and their confidence. After the training, their swabbing execution scores were high. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Video-assisted hands-on instruction for nasopharyngeal swab sampling can be used to standardize teaching. When prompt and accurate testing is paramount, this instruction can optimize procedural technique and should be used early and often. In addition, there may be a professional responsibility of otolaryngologists to participate in such initiatives.
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.