Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34735503›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

The use of DIY (Do it yourself) sampling and telemonitoring model for COVID-19 qPCR testing scale up.

Olufemi Samuel Amoo, Funmi Adewara, Bosun Tijani, Tochukwu Ifeanyi Onuigbo, Amaka Stephanie Ikemefuna, Joy Isioma Oraegbu, Tazeen Rizvi, Azuka Okwuraiwe, Chika Onwuamah, Joseph Shaibu and 18 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

28 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Olufemi Samuel AmooDepartment of Microbiology, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Funmi AdewaraMobihealth International Limited, Abuja, Nigeria.
Bosun TijaniCo-creation Hub, Lagos, Nigeria.
Tochukwu Ifeanyi OnuigboDepartment of Microbiology, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.ORCID 0000-0001-7719-5158
Amaka Stephanie IkemefunaDepartment of Microbiology, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Joy Isioma OraegbuDepartment of Microbiology, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Tazeen RizviMobihealth International Limited, Abuja, Nigeria.
Azuka OkwuraiweDepartment of Microbiology, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Chika OnwuamahDepartment of Microbiology, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Joseph ShaibuDepartment of Microbiology, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Ayorinde JamesDepartment of Biochemistry, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Greg OhihoinClinical Science Department, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Fehintola IgeDepartment of Microbiology, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Dorcas KareithiCo-creation Hub, Lagos, Nigeria.ORCID 0000-0002-2161-8542
Agatha DavidClinical Science Department, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Steven KareraCo-creation Hub, Lagos, Nigeria.ORCID 0000-0003-4045-1060
Hammed AgboolaDepartment of Microbiology, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Anthony AdeniyiDepartment of Microbiology, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Josephine ObiDepartment of Microbiology, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Dominic AchanyaDepartment of Microbiology, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Ebenezer OdewaleDepartment of Microbiology, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Osaga OforomehDepartment of Microbiology, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Gideon LiboroDepartment of Microbiology, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Olayemi NwogbeDepartment of Library and Information Technology, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Oliver EzechiClinical Science Department, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Richard AdegbolaDepartment of Biochemistry, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Rosemary AuduDepartment of Microbiology, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Babatunde SalakoDepartment of Microbiology, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Nigerian Institute of Medical Research · NGLagos State Health Service Commission · NG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The first case of COVID-19 in Nigeria was recorded on February 27, 2020, being an imported case by an Italian expatriate, to the country. Since then, there has been steady increase in the number of cases. However, the number of cases in Nigeria is low in comparison to cases reported by other countries with similar large populations, despite the poor health system prevailing in the country. This has been mainly attributed to the low testing capacity in Nigeria among other factors. Therefore, there is a need for innovative ways to increase the number of persons testing for COVID-19. The aim of the study was to pilot a nasopharyngeal swab self-sample collection model that would help increase COVID-19 testing while ensuring minimal person-to-person contact being experienced at the testing center. 216 participants took part in this study which was carried out at the Nigerian Institute of Medical Research between June and July 2020. Amongst the 216 participants, 174 tested negatives for both self-collected samples and samples collected by Professionals, 30 tested positive for both arms, with discrepancies occurring in 6 samples where the self-collected samples were positive while the ones collected by the professionals were negative. The same occurred in another set of 6 samples with the self-collected samples being negative and the professional-collected sample coming out positive, with a sensitivity of 83.3% and a specificity of 96.7%. The results of the interrater analysis are Kappa = 0.800 (95% CI, 0.690 to 0.910) which implies an outstanding agreement between the two COVID-19 sampling methods. Furthermore, since p< 0.001 Kappa (k) coefficient is statistically different from zero, our findings have shown that self-collected samples can be reliable in the diagnosis of COVID-19.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedCOVID-19COVID-19 TestingDiagnostic Tests, RoutineFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNigeriaPolymerase Chain ReactionRemote ConsultationReproducibility of ResultsSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID34735503
PMCPMC8568151
OpenAlexW3210880528

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.