ArticleViruses2021
Efficacy of Unsupervised Self-Collected Mid-Turbinate FLOQSwabs for the Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Article in Viruses, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 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
- Comparison of self-collected oral-nasal and mid-turbinate swabs to healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: a paired clinical evaluation.Access microbiology · 2026Article
- Knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection and proper use of rapid diagnostic self-test among Shanghai residents in China.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Molecular Diagnosis of COVID-19; Biosafety and Pre-analytical Recommendations.Iranian journal of pathology · 2023Review
- Article
- Importance of Adequate qPCR Controls in Infection Control.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
20 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextThe Global Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has resulted in explosive patterns of transmission in most countries. Nasopharyngeal swabs were the specimen's collection tools recommended for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and for monitoring infection outbreaks in communities. Our objective was to report the quality and efficacy of unsupervised self-collected mid turbinate "dry FLOQSwabs" (MT FLOQSwabs) (56380CS01, Copan). There were 111 specimens collected for the study: 36 by health care personnel, from themselves, to verify the quality and efficacy of mid-turbinate swabs; 75 to compare and assess the diagnostic performance, among health care personnel, of nasopharyngeal swabs and self-collected mid-turbinate FLOQSwabs. A collection of 51 specimens was enrolled to define the efficacy of the Testami program (validation). Our analyses demonstrate that self-collected mid-turbinate dry swabs ensure an accuracy of 97.3%, as compared to the standard nasopharyngeal swabs collected by health care workers. Furthermore, the mid-turbinate FLOQSwabs can be stored without medium for six days at room temperature without affecting the molecular diagnosis of the SARS-CoV-2 virus infection. Self-collection of diagnostic specimens at home could offer an avenue to increase testing availability for SARS-CoV-2 infection without asking people to travel to a clinic or a laboratory, thus reducing people's exposure to infection. Our findings demonstrate that unsupervised self-collection swabs, transported dry, are sensitive, practical and easy-to-use tools and should be considered for diagnosis of SARS-COV-2 and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) surveillance.
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.