ArticleIranian journal of pathology2020
Comparison of Patient-collected and Lab Technician-collected Nasopharyngeal and Oropharyngeal Swabs for Detection of COVID-19 by RT-PCR.
Article in Iranian journal of pathology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Performance of Saliva, Oropharyngeal Swabs, and Nasal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2021Pooled it
- Humoral and T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 reveal insights into immunity during the early pandemic period in Pakistan.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Determine phenotypical patterns of resistance to antibiotics in COVID-19 patients with associated bacterial infection: largest medical center in Iran.Iranian journal of microbiology · 2023Article
- Recent trends in carbon nanotube (CNT)-based biosensors for the fast and sensitive detection of human viruses: a critical review.Nanoscale advances · 2023Review
- Different Respiratory Samples for COVID-19 Detection by Standard and Direct Quantitative RT-PCR: A Literature Review.Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPR · 2021Review
- The use of DIY (Do it yourself) sampling and telemonitoring model for COVID-19 qPCR testing scale up.PloS one · 2021Article
- Article
- Nucleic Acid and Immunological Diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: Processes, Platforms and Pitfalls.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
objectiveA simple approach to prevent close contact in healthcare settings during the COVID-19 outbreak is to train patients to collect their own nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs and deliver them to medical laboratories to have them processed. The aim of our study was to compare lab technician- with patient- collected oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal samples for detection of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) using rapid real-time polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR).
methodsFifty adult patients with flu-like symptoms and radiologic findings compatible with atypical pneumonia who were admitted to the infectious diseases ward of Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, Tehran, Iran, with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 from February 28 to April 27 of 2020 were randomly selected and entered in our study. Two sets of naso- and oropharyngeal swabs were collected, one set by a lab technician and the other by the patients, and the COVID-19 rRT-PCR test was performed.
resultsOf 50 selected cases, in seven patients all collected naso- and oropharyngeal swabs tested positive, and in 22 patients all samples tested negative for COVID-19 in rRT-PCR. Discrepancies between rRT-PCR results of lab technician- and patient-collected swabs were observed in 12 nasopharyngeal and 13 oropharyngeal specimens. Positive lab technician-collected and negative patient-collected samples were observed in 10 and 5 nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal specimens, respectively. Negative lab technician-collected and positive patient-collected samples were observed in two and seven nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal specimens, respectively. The overall percentage of agreement among both nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs taken by a lab technician and patients was 76% with a kappa value of 0.49 (
conclusionBased on our findings, lab technician-collected naso- and oropharyngeal swabs cannot be replaced by patient-collected ones with regard to COVID-19 rRT-PCR.
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.