ArticleAmerican journal of infection control2022
Evaluation of RT-qPCR of mouthwash and buccal swabs for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in children and adults.
Article in American journal of infection control, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Molecular Diagnostic Testing (December 2023).Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024Guideline
- Efficacy of Mouth Rinses and Nasal Spray in the Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis ofInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Impact of Swabbing Location, Self-Swabbing, and Food Intake on SARS-CoV-2 RNA Detection.Microorganisms · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs as a specimen collection method to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection is frequently perceived as uncomfortable by patients and requires trained personnel. In this study, detection rate of SARS-CoV-2 in mouthwash samples and buccal swabs were compared in both children and adults. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn patients admitted to hospital with confirmed COVID-19 within the previous 72 hours, NP and buccal swabs as well as mouthwash samples were collected. RT-qPCR was performed on all samples.
resultsIn total, 170 samples were collected from 155 patients (137 adults and 18 children). Approximately 91.7% of the collected NP swabs were positive in RT-PCR compared to 63.1% of mouthwash samples and 42.4% of buccal swabs. Compared to NP swabs, the sensitivity of using mouthwash was 96.3% and 65.4% for buccal swabs in NP swab samples with a CT value <25. With increasing CT values, sensitivity decreased in both mouthwash and buccal swabs. The virus load was highest during the first week of infection, with a continuous decline observed in all three collection methods over time. DISCUSSION: Mouthwash presents an alternative collection method for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in the case of unfeasible NP swab sampling. Buccal swabs should not be used due to their low sensitivity.
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.