ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2021
Comparing SARS-CoV-2 Testing in Anterior Nasal Vestibular Swabs vs. Oropharyngeal Swabs.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid, sensitive, and specific detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab samples of suspected patients using a novel one-step loop-mediated isothermal amplification (one-step LAMP) technique.BMC microbiology · 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
- 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
- Monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19 therapy and SARS-CoV-2 detection.Journal of biomedical science · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 testing in specimens collected from the anterior nasal vestibules of COVID-19 patients. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis was performed on 30 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 at the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center from March 14, 2020 to March 21, 2020. Paired specimens were collected from both the anterior nasal vestibule and the oropharynx from all patients. All specimens were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays. Results: Of the 30 patients with confirmed COVID-19, 17 patients (56.7%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 when oropharyngeal specimens were used, while 20 patients (66.7%) tested positive when nasal swab specimens were used. There was no statistically significant difference in sensitivity between the two methods. Conclusions: Respiratory swabs collected from the nasal vestibule offer a less invasive alternative to oropharyngeal swabs for specimen collection in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and have adequate 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.