ArticleJournal of paediatrics and child health2021
Comparison of nasopharyngeal samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection in a paediatric cohort.
Article in Journal of paediatrics and child health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Molecular Diagnosis of COVID-19; Biosafety and Pre-analytical Recommendations.Iranian journal of pathology · 2023Review
- Very High Negative Concordance Rate of RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 in Nasopharyngeal Swab and Tracheo-Bronchial Aspirate in Children.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) depends on accurate and rapid testing. Choosing an appropriate sample may impact diagnosis. Naso-oropharyngeal swabs (NOS) are most frequently used, despite several limitations. Since studies suggest nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA) as a superior alternative in children, we hypothesised collecting both nasopharyngeal swab and aspirate would improve our diagnostic accuracy.
methodsObservational, longitudinal, prospective study from 7 March to 7 May in a tertiary paediatric hospital in Lisbon. The objective was to compare the rate of detection of SARS-CoV-2 between NOS and NPA samples collected simultaneously.
resultsA total of 438 samples collected from 85 patients with confirmed COVID-19. There were 47.7% overall positive specimens - 32% (70/219) positive NOS and 63.5% (139/219) positive NPA. The tests were 67.6% concordant (k = 0.45). 50.3% had positive NPA with negative NOS, while 1.3% had positive NOS with negative NPA. NPA proved to be more sensitive (98.6% with 95% confidence interval 91.2-99.9% vs. 49.6% with 95% confidence interval 41.1-58.2%, P < 0.001). Additionally, the difference between NPA and NOS positive samples was statistically significant across all population groups (age, health condition, clinical presentation, contact with COVID-19 patients or need for hospitalisation), meaning NPA is more sensitive overall.
conclusionsNasopharyngeal aspirates had greater sensitivity than naso-oropharyngeal swabs in detecting SARS-CoV-2. Our results suggest paediatric patients would benefit from collecting nasopharyngeal aspirates in hospital settings, whenever feasible, to improve diagnosis of COVID-19.
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.