ReviewJournal of emergency nursing2021
Accuracy and Acceptance of a Self-Collection Model for Respiratory Tract Infection Diagnostics: A Concise Clinical Literature Review.
Review in Journal of emergency nursing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Niche-specific immune and microbial signatures across the healthy upper respiratory tract mucosa.iScience · 2026Article
- Key Insights into Respiratory Virus Testing: Sensitivity and Clinical Implications.Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNurses are the primary clinicians who collect specimens for respiratory tract infection testing. The specimen collection procedure is time and resource-consuming, but more importantly, it places nurses at risk for potential infection. The practice of allowing patients to self-collect their diagnostic specimens may provide an alternative testing model for the current COVID-19 outbreaks. The objective of this paper was to evaluate the accuracy and patient perception of self-collected specimens for respiratory tract infection diagnostics.
methodsA concise clinical review of the recently published literature was conducted.
resultsA total of 11 articles were included the review synthesis. The concept of self-collected specimens has a high patient acceptance rate of 83-99%. Self-collected nasal-swab specimens demonstrated strong diagnostic fidelity for respiratory tract infections with a sensitivity between 80-100%, this is higher than the 76% sensitivity observed with self-collected throat specimens. In a comparative study evaluating a professionally collected to a self-collected specimen for COVID-19 testing, a high degree of agreement (k = 0.89) was observed between the two methods.
conclusionAs we continue to explore for testing models to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, self-collected specimens is a practical alternative to nurse specimen collection.
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.