Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33125422›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Sample adequacy controls for infectious disease diagnosis by oral swabbing.

Meagan Deviaene, Kris M Weigel, Rachel C Wood, Angelique K K Luabeya, Lisa Jones-Engel, Mark Hatherill, Gerard A Cangelosi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. The performance of tongue swabs for detection of pulmonary tuberculosis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Importance of Adequate qPCR Controls in Infection Control.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Meagan DeviaeneDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Kris M WeigelDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Rachel C WoodDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Angelique K K LuabeyaDepartment of Pathology, South African Tuberculosis Vaccine Initiative (SATVI), Institute of Infectious Disease & Molecular Medicine and Division of Immunology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Lisa Jones-EngelDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Mark HatherillDepartment of Pathology, South African Tuberculosis Vaccine Initiative (SATVI), Institute of Infectious Disease & Molecular Medicine and Division of Immunology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Gerard A CangelosiDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0006-6520
University of Washington · USUniversity of Cape Town · ZA

Funding

Non-invasive diagnosis of adult pulmonary tuberculosisR01AI139254 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI CANGELOSI, GERARD A · 2019 to 2022
$1.3M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI139254
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Oral swabs are emerging as a non-invasive sample type for diagnosing infectious diseases including Ebola, tuberculosis (TB), and COVID-19. To assure proper sample collection, sample adequacy controls (SACs) are needed that detect substances indicative of samples collected within the oral cavity. This study evaluated two candidate SACs for this purpose. One detected representative oral microbiota (Streptococcus species DNA) and the other, human cells (human mitochondrial DNA, mtDNA). Quantitative PCR (qPCR) assays for the two target cell types were applied to buccal swabs (representing samples collected within the oral cavity) and hand swabs (representing improperly collected samples) obtained from 51 healthy U.S. volunteers. Quantification cycle (Cq) cutoffs that maximized Youden's index were established for each assay. The streptococcal target at a Cq cutoff of ≤34.9 had 99.0% sensitivity and specificity for oral swab samples, whereas human mtDNA perfectly distinguished between hand and mouth swabs with a Cq cutoff of 31.3. The human mtDNA test was then applied to buccal, tongue, and gum swabs that had previously been collected from TB patients and controls in South Africa, along with "air swabs" collected as negative controls (total N = 292 swabs from 71 subjects). Of these swabs, 287/292 (98%) exhibited the expected Cq values. In a paired analysis the three oral sites yielded indistinguishable amounts of human mtDNA, however PurFlockTM swabs collected slightly more human mtDNA than did OmniSwabsTM (p = 0.012). The results indicate that quantification of human mtDNA cannot distinguish swabs collected from different sites within the mouth. However, it can reliably distinguish oral swabs from swabs that were not used orally, which makes it a useful SAC for oral swab-based diagnosis.

Indexed as

AdultCOVID-19COVID-19 TestingDiagnostic Tests, RoutineDNA, MitochondrialDNA, ViralFemaleHumansMaleMouthReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionReference StandardsSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificitySouth AfricaSpecimen HandlingDNA, MitochondrialDNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID33125422
PMCPMC7598519
OpenAlexW2775392773

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.