ArticleThe Laryngoscope2021
Discordant SARS-CoV-2 Detection in the Nasopharynx Versus Trachea for Patients With Tracheostomies.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Respiratory Particle Emissions in Tracheostomized Outpatients: Comparable to Healthy Volunteers.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2026Article
- SARS-CoV-2 infection increases airway bleeding risk in patients after tracheostomies.Virology journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectives/hypothesisPatients with tracheostomies have an anatomically altered connection between their upper and lower airways that could impact SARS-CoV-2 testing. Our goal was to evaluate for discordance in SARS-CoV-2 detection in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and tracheostomies based on the site analyzed. STUDY
designRetrospective chart review.
methodsThis single-institution study evaluated hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who had tracheostomies placed during their treatment. We analyzed SARS-CoV-2 RNA nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) results after tracheostomy. All included patients had nasopharyngeal (NP) and tracheal (TR) samples taken within a 48-hour period, allowing us to characterize rate of test concordance.
resultsForty-five patients met our inclusion criteria. Thirty-two (71.1%) patients had entirely concordant results after tracheostomy. However, 13 (28.9%) patients had at least one set of discordant results, the majority of which were NP negative and TR positive. There were no statistically significant differences in demographic or clinical variables, including time to tracheostomy and time to testing, among patients with concordant versus discordant SARS-CoV-2 results.
conclusionThis represents the first study to examine SARS-CoV-2 RNA NAAT concordance between NP and TR sites in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and tracheostomies. One-third of patients demonstrated discordant testing when NP and TR specimens were collected within a 48-hour time period. Thus, patients with tracheostomies may have a higher false-negative rate if only one site is assessed for SARS-CoV-2. We recommend analyzing samples from both the nasopharynx and trachea for these patients until more prospective data exist. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 131:E2634-E2638, 2021.
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.