ArticleJournal of virological methods2021
Reliable detection of SARS-CoV-2 with patient-collected swabs and saline gargles: A three-headed comparison on multiple molecular platforms.
Article in Journal of virological methods, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sensitivity of gargle samples compared to swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection with nucleic acid amplification testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Virology journal · 2026Pooled it
- The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Saline gargle collection method is comparable to nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabbing for the molecular detection and sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 in Botswana.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Surveillance forMicrobiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Taqman PACMAN: a simple molecular approach for positive rapid antigen test confirmation during periods of low prevalence.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Hunting for mpox (monkeypox) mimickers: Use of the Biofire meningitis/encephalitis panel on lesion swabs to support alternative viral diagnoses.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2023Article
- Accuracy of an antigen-detecting SARS-CoV-2 assay with self- and provider-collected specimens interpreted visually and with BD Veritor™ Plus analyzer.Journal of clinical virology plus · 2023Article
- Stick with the nose…Saliva rapid antigen testing is not a viable method for testing children under 5 years old.Journal of paediatrics and child health · 2023Article
- Quantitative analysis of different respiratory specimens on two automated test systems for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA.Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Non-Invasive Gargle Lavage Sampling for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Using rRT-PCR or Antigen Assay.Viruses · 2022Article
- Saliva as a diagnostic specimen for SARS-CoV-2 detection: A scoping review.Oral diseases · 2022Article
- Predictors of SARS-CoV-2 RNA From Nasopharyngeal Swabs and Concordance With Other Compartments in Nonhospitalized Adults With Mild to Moderate COVID-19.Open forum infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Evaluation of water gargle samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection using Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 assay.Journal of medical virology · 2022Article
- Investigating the Sensitivity of Nasal or Throat Swabs: Combination of Both Swabs Increases the Sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Tests.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Natural spring water gargle samples as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection using a laboratory-developed test.Journal of medical virology · 2022Article
- Comparison between Nasal and Nasopharyngeal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Detection in an Asymptomatic Population, and Direct Confirmation by RT-PCR from the Residual Buffer.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Bean Extract-Based Gargle for Efficient Diagnosis of Active COVID-19 Infection Using Rapid Antigen Tests.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Evaluation of observed and unobserved self-collection of saline gargle samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in outpatients.Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 2022Article
- From disgusting and complicated to simple and brilliant: Implementation perspectives and lessons learned from users and rejectors of mail-in SARS-CoV-2 gargle tests.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Factors contributing to a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak on a mixed medical-surgical unit in a Canadian acute-care hospital.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With increasing demands for SARS-CoV-2 testing, as well as the shortages for testing supplies, collection devices, and trained healthcare workers (HCWs) to collect specimens, self-collection is an attractive prospect to reduce the need for HCWs and expenditure of personal protective equipment. Apart from the traditional nasopharyngeal swab used for SARS-CoV-2 detection, alternative specimens have been validated such as a combined swabs of the oropharynx and anterior nares (OP/N), or throat samples using saline gargles. Both the alternative specimen types are amenable to self-collection. Objectives. This study aimed to compare the sensitivity of HCW-collected (OP/N) swabs, self-collected OP/N swabs, and self-collected saline gargles. Among 38 individuals previously testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (or their close contacts), two self-collected specimen types (OP/N and saline gargles) were compared to HCW-collected OP/N swabs. SARS-CoV-2 testing was performed on three molecular assays: a laboratory-developed test (LDT), and two commercial assays on automated platforms: Cobas 6800 (Roche Diagnostics) and Panther (Hologic). The sensitivity of self-collected OP/N swabs was equivalent to healthcare worker (HCW)-collected OP/N swabs at 100.0 % [92.6%-100.0%] for all three molecular tests. The sensitivity of saline gargles was not significantly different than HCW-collected OP/N swabs, but varied slightly between instruments at 93.8 % [85.9%-93.8%] for the LDT, 96.8 % [88.6%-96.8%] for the Cobas assay, and 96.7 % [89.2%-96.9%] for the Panther assay. Overall, self-collection using OP/N swabs or saline gargles are reasonable alternatives to HCW-based collections for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and could facilitate broader surveillance strategies.
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.