ArticleJournal of medical virology2021
Comparison of nasopharyngeal swab and nasopharyngeal aspiration in adults for SARS-CoV-2 identification using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction.
Article in Journal of medical virology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Gut microbiome perturbation and its correlation with tylosin pharmacokinetics in healthy and infected pigs.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Performance analysis among multiple fully automated anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody measurement reagents: A potential indicator for the correlation of protection in the antibody titer.Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy · 2022Article
- A Comparison of Pharyngeal Swabs and Tracheal Secretions for the Diagnosing of COVID-19.Biomedicines · 2022Article
- Comparison of nasopharyngeal swab and nasopharyngeal aspiration in adults for SARS-CoV-2 identification using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction.Journal of medical virology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to compare reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results of nasopharyngeal aspiration (NA) and nasopharyngeal swab (NS) samples in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019. NS was obtained with a dacron swab and NA was performed by aspiration cannula. The sampling was performed by an otolaryngologist to ensure standardized correct sampling from the nasopharynx. RT-PCR was performed for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The level of agreement between the result of NA and NS samples for each patient was analyzed. The Ct values were compared. Thirty-three patients were enrolled in the study with a mean age of 56.3 years. Thirteen subjects resulted negative with both NS and NA; 20 subjects resulted positive with NA and 18 subjects resulted positive with NS. The mean values of Ct for NA samples and NS samples were 24.6 ± 5.9 and 24 ± 6.7, respectively. There was no statistical difference between Ct values of NA and NS samples (p = 0.48). RT-PCR for SARS-Cov2 performed with NA sample and NS sample showed a strong correlation regarding the positivity/negativity and the Ct values.
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.