ArticleOTO open
Utility of Point-of-Care COVID-19 Testing in an Outpatient Otolaryngology clinic.
Article in OTO open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the utility of point-of-care COVID-19 testing for identifying infected patients in an otolaryngology practice. STUDY
designRetrospective review of 947 patients tested with a point-of-care nucleic acid amplification test for SARS-CoV-2 (Abbott ID Now).
settingTertiary otolaryngology clinic setting from July to November 2020.
methodsTests were characterized by provider-specified indication (symptomatic, preprocedural, and universal), subspecialty, provider type, and contemporaneous regional COVID-19 positivity rate, defined as 12%. Positive results were further classified as true or false positive (TP or FP) based on repeat polymerase chain reaction testing wherever available, and true positivity rates were compared among groups by multiway chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. FP rates within 48 hours of a TP result were also evaluated to assess for batch contamination.
resultsA total of 947 SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests were performed, yielding 9 TPs (0.95%) and 5 FPs (0.53%). TP rates were significantly different by testing indication, with higher rates among symptomatic patients (
conclusionPoint-of-care COVID-19 nucleic acid amplification tests in an outpatient otolaryngology clinic identified a low TP rate (<1%) with most cases being clinically suspected. Laryngology and advanced practice practitioner encounters may have higher positivity rates.Level of evidence: 3.
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.