ArticlePloS one2020
A comparison of health care worker-collected foam and polyester nasal swabs in convalescent COVID-19 patients.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Validation of polyester nasal swabs for post-mortem SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis in Karachi, Pakistan: a prospective surveillance analysis.Journal of global health · 2025Observational
- Multiple antimicrobial resistance indices of Staphylococcus aureus from the nares of goats and slaughterhouse attendants in Kampala city, Uganda- a cross sectional study.BMC microbiology · 2025Article
- Detection and Stability of SARS-CoV-2 in Three Self-Collected Specimen Types: Flocked Midturbinate Swab (MTS) in Viral Transport Media, Foam MTS, and Saliva.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Performance of Non-nasopharyngeal Sample Types for Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2.Clinics in laboratory medicine · 2022Review
- Performance of anterior nares and tongue swabs for nucleic acid, Nucleocapsid, and Spike antigen testing for detecting SARS-CoV-2 against nasopharyngeal PCR and viral culture.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2022Article
- Review
- Different Respiratory Samples for COVID-19 Detection by Standard and Direct Quantitative RT-PCR: A Literature Review.Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPR · 2021Review
- Polyester nasal swabs collected in a dry tube are a robust and inexpensive, minimal self-collection kit for SARS-CoV-2 testing.PloS one · 2021Article
- Testing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus 2: Challenges in Getting Good Specimens, Choosing the Right Test, and Interpreting the Results.Critical care medicine · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Both polyester and foam nasal swabs were collected from convalescent COVID-19 patients at a single visit and stored in viral transport media (VTM), saline or dry. Sensitivity of each swab material and media combination were estimated, three by three tables were constructed to measure polyester and foam concordance, and cycle threshold (Ct) values were compared. 126 visits had polyester and foam swabs stored in viral transport media (VTM), 51 had swabs stored in saline, and 63 had a foam swab in VTM and a polyester swab stored in a dry tube. Polyester and foam swabs had an estimated sensitivity of 87.3% and 94.5% respectively in VTM, 87.5% and 93.8% respectively in saline, and 75.0% and 90.6% respectively for dry polyester and foam VTM. Polyester and foam Ct values were correlated, but polyester showed decreased performance for cases with a viral load near the detection threshold and higher Ct values on average.
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.