ArticleInfection2021
Self-sampling versus health care professional-guided swab collection for SARS-CoV-2 testing.
Article in Infection, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05209178 (Diagnostic Accuracy of Self-collected Versus Healthcare Collected Anterior Nose Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Detection - a Randomized Controlled Trial.), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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.
Diagnostic Accuracy of Self-collected Versus Healthcare Collected Anterior Nose Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Detection - a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Acceptability of self-sampling and self-testing for infections: a rapid systematic review on public users' views.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Accuracy of self-collected versus healthcare worker collected specimens for diagnosing sexually transmitted infections in females: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- Implementation and User Satisfaction of a Comprehensive Telemedicine Approach for SARS-CoV-2 Self-Sampling: Monocentric, Prospective, Interventional, Open-Label, Controlled, Two-Arm Feasibility Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Trial
- Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of a Throat Spray with Selected Lactobacilli in COVID-19 Outpatients.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Trial
- Diagnostic Performance of Self-Collected Respiratory Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza Virus in Community-Dwelling Older Adults.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2026Article
- Impact of Swabbing Location, Self-Swabbing, and Food Intake on SARS-CoV-2 RNA Detection.Microorganisms · 2024Article
- Monkeypox Diagnosis in Clinical Settings: A Comprehensive Review of Best Laboratory Practices.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024Review
- Evaluation of COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic tests for self-testing in Lesotho and Zambia.PloS one · 2024Article
- An Investigation into a Throat Swab Collection Device for Children.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2023Article
- Evolution of SARS-CoV-2 Variants: Implications on Immune Escape, Vaccination, Therapeutic and Diagnostic Strategies.Viruses · 2023Review
- Performance Analysis of Self-Collected Nasal and Oral Swabs for Detection of SARS-CoV-2.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Simplifying the complex: accessible microfluidic solutions for contemporary processes withinLab on a chip · 2022Review
- Diagnostics of COVID-19 Based on CRISPR-Cas Coupled to Isothermal Amplification: A Comparative Analysis and Update.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Rapid antigen testing as a reactive response to surges in nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 outbreak risk.Nature communications · 2022Article
- A Telemedicine-Guided Self-Collection Approach for PCR-Based SARS-CoV-2 Testing: Comparative Study.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Is My Cough a Cold or Covid? A Qualitative Study of COVID-19 Symptom Recognition and Attitudes Toward Testing in the UK.Frontiers in public healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the diagnostic reliability and practicability of self-collected oropharyngeal swab samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection as self-sampling could enable broader testing availability and reduce both personal protective equipment and potential exposure.
methodsHospitalized SARS-CoV-2-infected patients were asked to collect two oropharyngeal swabs (SC-OPS1/2), and an additional oropharyngeal swab was collected by a health care professional (HCP-OPS). SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing for samples from 58 participants was performed, with a 48-h delay in half of the self-collected samples (SC-OPS2). The sensitivity, probability of concordance, and interrater reliability were calculated. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess predictive factors. Practicability was evaluated through a questionnaire.
resultsThe test sensitivity for HCP-OPS, SC-OPS1, and SC-OPS2 was 88%, 78%, and 77%, respectively. Combining both SC-OPS results increased the estimated sensitivity to 88%. The concordance probability between HCP-OPS and SC-OPS1 was 77.6% and 82.5% between SC-OPS1 and SC-OPS2, respectively. Of the participants, 69% affirmed performing future self-sampling at home, and 34% preferred self-sampling over HCP-guided testing. Participants with both positive HCP-OPS1 and SC-OPS1 indicating no challenges during self-sampling had more differences in viral load levels between HCP-OPS1 and SC-OPS1 than those who indicated challenges. Increasing disease duration and the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgG correlated with negative test results in self-collected samples of previously confirmed SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals.
conclusionOropharyngeal self-sampling is an applicable testing approach for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. Self-sampling tends to be more effective in early versus late infection and symptom onset, and the collection of two distinct samples is recommended to maintain high test sensitivity.
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.