ArticleAmerican journal of otolaryngology
A comparison of swab types on sample adequacy, suspects comfort and provider preference in COVID-19.
Article in American journal of otolaryngology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Narrative Review of Remote Biospecimen Collection Product and Implementation Considerations for Sexual Health Clinical Research.AIDS and behavior · 2026Review
- Viral load in hospitalized infants with respiratory syncytial virus bronchiolitis: a three-way comparative analysis.European journal of pediatrics · 2024Article
- Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among children and staff in German daycare centres.Epidemiology and infection · 2022Article
- Evaluation and Clinical Validation of Guanidine-Based Inactivation Transport Medium for Preservation of SARS-CoV-2.Advances in pharmacological and pharmaceutical sciences · 2022Article
- Importance of Adequate qPCR Controls in Infection Control.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Assessment of perceived distress due to nasopharyngeal swab collection in healthy Indian infants participating in a clinical trial.Paediatric & neonatal pain · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study was aimed to compare the virological, suspect reported outcomes and provider preferences during COVID-19 swab taking procedure used for sampling.
methodsThe COVID-19 suspects are subjected to nasopharyngeal (NP) and oropharyngeal (OP) swabs for testing. Two types of swabs (Nylon and Dacron) are used for sample collection. Prospectively each suspect's response is collected and assessed for self-reported comfort level. The provider's experience with each suspect and virological outcomes recorded separately. The sample adequacy was compared based on swab types and demographic characteristics.
resultsA total of 1008 COVID-19 suspects were considered for comparison of various outcomes. Dacron and flocked Nylon swab sticks are used for taking 530 and 478 samples, respectively. Suspects who underwent the procedure using Nylon swabs were six times more likely to have pain/discomfort compared to when Dacron swab was used (Adj RR (95% CI: 6.76 (3.53 to 13, p=0.0001))). The providers perceived six times more resistance with the Nylon swabs compared to Dacron Swabs (Adj RR (95% CI: 5.96 (3.88 to 9.14, p=0.0001))). The pediatric population had a higher rate of blood staining in Dacron swab [Dacron 66 (80.5%); Nylon 51 (54.8%) p=0.0001]. The sample adequacy rate and laboratory positivity rate were not significantly different from each other.
conclusionsGiven the comparable virological outcomes, the difference in suspect and providers comfort should drive swab selection based on characteristics of the suspects. The bulbous Nylon swab caused more pain/discomfort in adults compared to Dacron.
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.