Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33688680›Full record

ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2021

Evaluation of sample collection and transport strategies to enhance yield, accessibility, and biosafety of COVID-19 RT-PCR testing.

Padmapriya Banada, David Elson, Naranjargal Daivaa, Claire Park, Samuel Desind, Ibsen Montalvan, Robert Kwiatkowski, Soumitesh Chakravorty, David Alland, Yingda L Xie

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Padmapriya BanadaORCID 0000-0002-5217-6142
David Elson
Naranjargal Daivaa
Claire Park
Samuel Desind
Ibsen Montalvan
Robert Kwiatkowski
Soumitesh ChakravortyORCID 0000-0001-5499-0204

Funding

TB detection in children using a novel stool-based GeneXpert assayR01AI131617 · NIAID · RBHS-NEW JERSEY MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI ALLAND, DAVID, NICOL, MARK PATRICK · 2018 to 2022
$2.9M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI131617
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sensitive, accessible, and biosafe sampling methods for COVID-19 reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays are needed for frequent and widespread testing. We systematically evaluated diagnostic yield across different sample collection and transport workflows, including the incorporation of a viral inactivation buffer. We prospectively collected nasal swabs, oral swabs, and saliva, from 52 COVID-19 RT-PCR-confirmed patients, and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs from 37 patients. Nasal and oral swabs were placed in both viral transport media (VTM) and eNAT™, a sterilizing transport buffer, prior to testing with the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Xpert) test. The sensitivity of each sampling strategy was compared using a composite positive standard. Overall, swab specimens collected in eNAT showed superior sensitivity compared to swabs in VTM (70% vs 57%, P=0.0022). Direct saliva 90.5%, (95% CI: 82%, 95%), followed by NP swabs in VTM and saliva in eNAT, was significantly more sensitive than nasal swabs in VTM (50%, P<0.001) or eNAT (67.8%, P=0.0012) and oral swabs in VTM (50%, P<0.0001) or eNAT (56%, P<0.0001). Saliva and use of eNAT buffer each increased detection of SARS-CoV-2 with the Xpert test; however, no single sample matrix identified all positive cases.

Identifiers

PMID33688680
PMCPMC7941657

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.