ArticlePloS one2020
Sample adequacy controls for infectious disease diagnosis by oral swabbing.
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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review of Bacterial Sampling Collection for Veterinary Microbiology in Companion Animals.Veterinary sciences · 2026Review
- Improving tuberculosis diagnosis: evaluation of tongue swabbing as a complementary method to sputum analysis in Guinea.Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials · 2025Article
- Exploration of tongue dorsum sampling to support clinical diagnosis of leprosy patients in the Comoros: A cross-sectional study.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Article
- Specimen adequacy assay controls in nucleic acid amplification tests do not correlate with nasopharyngeal swab collection method.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Blazing the trail for innovative tuberculosis diagnostics.Infection · 2024Review
- Diagnostic Yield of Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests in Oral Samples for Pulmonary Tuberculosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Open forum infectious diseases · 2023Review
- The performance of tongue swabs for detection of pulmonary tuberculosis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023Article
- Diagnostic performance of patient self-collected oral swab (tongue and cheek) in comparison with healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal swab for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 detection.APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica · 2022Article
- Accuracy of Tongue Swab Testing Using Xpert MTB-RIF Ultra for Tuberculosis Diagnosis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2022Article
- Gene-Based Diagnosis of Tuberculosis from Oral Swabs with a New Generation Pathogen Enrichment Technique.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Importance of Adequate qPCR Controls in Infection Control.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- A Look Inside: Oral Sampling for Detection of Non-oral Infectious Diseases.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2021Article
- Sample Adequacy Control (SAC) Lowers False Negatives and Increases the Quality of Screening: Introduction of "Non-Competitive" SAC for qPCR Assays.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
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
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.