Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34401485›Full record

ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2021

A Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 detection method based on nasal and nasopharyngeal lavage fluid: A pilot feasibility study.

Daniele Frezza, Cristoforo Fabbris, Leonardo Franz, Elisa Vian, Roberto Rigoli, Rosalba De Siati, Enzo Emanuelli, Luigi Bertinato, Paolo Boscolo-Rizzo, Giacomo Spinato

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Discrepancies of SARS-CoV-2 testing results among patients with total laryngectomy.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2022
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Daniele FrezzaUnit of Otorhinolaryngology AULSS 2-Marca Trevigiana Treviso Italy.
Cristoforo FabbrisUnit of Otorhinolaryngology AULSS 2-Marca Trevigiana Treviso Italy.
Leonardo FranzUnit of Otorhinolaryngology AULSS 2-Marca Trevigiana Treviso Italy.
Elisa VianDepartment of Clinical Pathology AULSS 2-Marca Trevigiana Treviso Italy.
Roberto RigoliDepartment of Clinical Pathology AULSS 2-Marca Trevigiana Treviso Italy.
Rosalba De SiatiUnit of Otorhinolaryngology AULSS 2-Marca Trevigiana Treviso Italy.
Enzo EmanuelliUnit of Otorhinolaryngology AULSS 2-Marca Trevigiana Treviso Italy.
Luigi BertinatoNational Institute of Health Rome Italy.
Paolo Boscolo-RizzoDepartment of Neurosciences, Section of Otolaryngology University of Padova Treviso Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4635-7959
Giacomo SpinatoUnit of Otorhinolaryngology AULSS 2-Marca Trevigiana Treviso Italy.
AULSS 2 Marca Trevigiana · ITUniversity of Padua · ITNational Institute of Health · AM

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveNose and nasopharyngeal swab is the preferred and worldwide-accepted method to detect the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) within the nose and nasopharynx. This method may be linked with possible difficulties, such as patient's discomfort or complications. This article shows a pilot study of SARS-CoV-2 detection with nasal and nasopharyngeal lavage fluids (level of evidence: 3).

methodsNasal lavage fluid was collected from patients who were submitted to SARS-CoV-2 screening test, due to a preceding positive rapid antigen test. A control group was enrolled among health care professionals whose nasopharyngeal swab tested negative. Nasal lavages were performed using isotonic saline solution injected through a nasal fossa. Both lavage fluid and traditional nasopharyngeal swab were analyzed by real-time (RT) PCR and antigenic test.

resultsA total of 49 positive subjects were enrolled in the study. Results of the analysis on lavages and nasopharyngeal swabs were concordant for 48 cases, regardless of the antigenic and molecular test performed. RT-PCR resulted weakly positive at swab in one case and negative at lavage fluid. Among the control group (44 subjects), nasopharyngeal swab and lavage fluid analyses returned a negative result. Sensitivity of the molecular test based on nasal lavage fluid, compared to traditional nasal swab, was 97.7%, specificity was 100%, and accuracy was 98.9%, with high agreement (Cohen's κ, 0.978).

conclusionNasal and nasopharyngeal lavages resulted to be highly reliable and well tolerated. A larger series is needed to confirm these results. This approach may potentially represent a valid alternative to the traditional swab method in selected cases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Indexed as

COVID‐19diagnosisnasal irrigationpreventive caresaline solutionswab

Identifiers

PMID34401485
PMCPMC8356876
OpenAlexW3185543953

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.