Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33852576›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Polyester nasal swabs collected in a dry tube are a robust and inexpensive, minimal self-collection kit for SARS-CoV-2 testing.

Leah R Padgett, Lauren A Kennington, Charlotte L Ahls, Delini K Samarasinghe, Yuan-Po Tu, Michelle L Wallander, Shawna D Cooper, James S Elliott, Douglas Rains

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Performance of anterior nares and tongue swabs for nucleic acid, Nucleocapsid, and Spike antigen testing for detecting SARS-CoV-2 against nasopharyngeal PCR and viral culture.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2022
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Leah R PadgettQuantigen Biosciences, Fishers, Indiana, United States of America.
Lauren A KenningtonQuantigen Biosciences, Fishers, Indiana, United States of America.
Charlotte L AhlsQuantigen Biosciences, Fishers, Indiana, United States of America.
Delini K SamarasingheQuantigen Biosciences, Fishers, Indiana, United States of America.
Yuan-Po TuThe Everett Clinic-Part of Optum, Everett, Washington, United States of America.
Michelle L WallanderSciest, Mooresville, North Carolina, United States of America.
Shawna D CooperAudere, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
James S ElliottQuantigen Biosciences, Fishers, Indiana, United States of America.
Douglas RainsQuantigen Biosciences, Fishers, Indiana, United States of America.
Everett Community College · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn order to identify an inexpensive yet highly stable SARS-CoV-2 collection device as an alternative to foam swabs stored in transport media, both contrived ("surrogate") CoV-positive and patient-collected spun polyester swabs stored in dry tubes were evaluated for time- and temperature-stability using qPCR.

methodsSurrogate specimens were prepared by combining multiple, residual SARS-CoV-2-positive clinical specimens and diluting to near-LOD levels in either porcine or human mucus ("matrix"), inoculating foam or polyester nasal swabs, and sealing in dry tubes. Swabs were then subjected to one of three temperature excursions: (1) 4°C for up to 72 hours; (2) 40°C for 12 hours, followed by 32°C for up to 60 hours; or (3) multiple freeze-thaw cycles (-20°C). The stability of extracted SARS-CoV-2 RNA for each condition was evaluated by qPCR. Separate usability studies for the dry polyester swab-based HealthPulse@home COVID-19 Specimen Collection Kit were later conducted in both adult and pediatric populations.

resultsPolyester swabs stored dry demonstrated equivalent performance to foam swabs for detection of low and moderate SARS-CoV-2 viral loads. Mimicking warm- and cold- climate shipment, surrogate specimens were stable following either 72 hours of a high-temperature excursion or two freeze-thaw cycles. In addition, usability studies comprised of self-collected patient specimens yielded sufficient material for molecular testing, as demonstrated by RNase P detection.

conclusionsPolyester nasal swabs stored in dry collection tubes offer a robust and inexpensive self-collection method for SARS-CoV-2 viral load testing, as viral RNA remains stable under conditions required for home collection and shipment to the laboratory.

Indexed as

AnimalsClinical Laboratory TechniquesCOVID-19COVID-19 TestingDiagnostic Tests, RoutineHumansMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesNasopharynxPolyestersReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionRNA, ViralSARS-CoV-2Specimen HandlingSwinePolyestersRNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID33852576
PMCPMC8046217
OpenAlexW3153111962

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.