ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2020
Self-Collected versus Healthcare Worker-Collected Swabs in the Diagnosis of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05209178 (Diagnostic Accuracy of Self-collected Versus Healthcare Collected Anterior Nose Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Detection - a Randomized Controlled Trial.), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Diagnostic Accuracy of Self-collected Versus Healthcare Collected Anterior Nose Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Detection - a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Self-swabbing versus assisted swabbing for viral detection by qRT-PCR: the experience from SARS-CoV-2 based on a meta-analysis of six prospectively designed evaluations conducted in a UK setting.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024Pooled it
- COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Tests With Self-Collected vs Health Care Worker-Collected Nasal and Throat Swab Specimens: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2023Trial
- Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers : A Randomized Controlled Trial.Annals of internal medicine · 2021Trial
- Colonization of selected antibiotic-resistant bacteria among pregnant women: a cross-sectional study at a tertiary care hospital in the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- A multicenter study to assess the performance of the point-of-care RT-PCR Cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B nucleic acid test for use on the Cobas Liat system in comparison with centralized assays across healthcare facilities in the United States.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2 From Throat Swabs Performed With or Without Specimen Collection From the Tonsils: Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Article
- Head-to-Head Comparison of Nasopharyngeal, Oropharyngeal and Nasal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Testing.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- 3D-printed simulator for nasopharyngeal swab collection for COVID-19.Infectious diseases now · 2022Article
- Sensitivity and Specificity of SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Detection Tests Using Oral, Anterior Nasal, and Nasopharyngeal Swabs: a Diagnostic Accuracy Study.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Accuracy of anterior nasal swab rapid antigen tests compared with RT-PCR for massive SARS-CoV-2 screening in low prevalence population.APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica · 2022Article
- SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostics Based on Nucleic Acids Amplification: From Fundamental Concepts to Applications and Beyond.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Review
- Usability of an At-Home Anterior Nares SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Sample Collection Kit: Human Factors Feasibility Study.JMIR human factors · 2021Article
- Valid and Reliable Assessment of Upper Respiratory Tract Specimen Collection Skills during the COVID-19 Pandemic.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Danish citizens' preferences for at-home oropharyngeal/nasal SARS-CoV-2 specimen collection.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2021Article
- Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions in SARS-CoV-2 infection: A systematic review.Brain, behavior, & immunity - health · 2021Review
- Evolution of Specimen Self-Collection in the COVID-19 Era: Implications for Population Health Management of Infectious Disease.Population health management · 2021Review
- Different Respiratory Samples for COVID-19 Detection by Standard and Direct Quantitative RT-PCR: A Literature Review.Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPR · 2021Review
- Performance of at-home self-collected saliva and nasal-oropharyngeal swabs in the surveillance of COVID-19.Journal of oral 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the sensitivity of self-collected versus healthcare worker (HCW)-collected swabs for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing. Symptomatic individuals referred for SARS-CoV-2 testing were invited to provide mobile-phone video-instructed self-collected oropharyngeal and nasal samples followed by a HCW-collected oropharyngeal sample. All samples were sent for analysis to the same microbiology laboratory, and the number of SARS-CoV-2-positive participants in the two tests was compared. A total of 109 participants were included, and 19 participants had SARS-CoV-2-positive results. The diagnostic sensitivity of the self-collected and HCW-collected swabs was 84.2% and 89.5%, respectively, with an acceptable agreement, Cohens kappa 0.82,
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.