ArticleDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease2021
Analysis of sputum/tracheal aspirate and nasopharyngeal samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection by laboratory-developed test and Panther Fusion system.
Article in Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2021. 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, 12 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
- Updating the use of nano-biosensors as promising devices for the diagnosis of coronavirus family members: A systematic review.Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis · 2022Pooled it
- Molecular Diagnosis of COVID-19; Biosafety and Pre-analytical Recommendations.Iranian journal of pathology · 2023Review
- Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy of the STANDARD M10 Assay for the Molecular Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in the Point-of-Care and Critical Care Settings.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Advances in the Rapid Diagnostic of Viral Respiratory Tract Infections.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Review
- Comparison of nasopharyngeal swab and nasopharyngeal aspiration in adults for SARS-CoV-2 identification using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction.Journal of medical virology · 2021Article
- Discordant SARS-CoV-2 Detection in the Nasopharynx Versus Trachea for Patients With Tracheostomies.The Laryngoscope · 2021Article
- Biological characteristics and biomarkers of novel SARS-CoV-2 facilitated rapid development and implementation of diagnostic tools and surveillance measures.Biosensors & bioelectronics · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, 127 sputum/tracheal aspirate specimens were evaluated by a laboratory-developed real-time RT-PCR method and Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assay. These specimens were collected from the patients who have nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples being used for SARS-CoV-2 detection previously or simultaneously. The overall agreement was 96% between the lower respiratory tract (LRT) and NPS samples, suggesting that LRT specimens could be an option for patients who develop a productive cough or those receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.
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.