ReviewPathogens (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Nasopharyngeal Swabs vs. Nasal Aspirates for Respiratory Virus Detection: A Systematic Review.
Review in Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline
- Clinical Impact of RSV Vaccination in Hemodialysis Patients: Real-World Evidence on Hospitalization Risk and the Role of Chronic Lung Disease.Advances in respiratory medicine · 2026Article
- Epidemiology and co-infection networks of pediatric respiratory pathogens in eastern China after COVID-19 restriction relaxation: a retrospective study.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Aetiological Fraction of Influenza, Respiratory Syncytial Virus and Other Respiratory Pathogens in Infants Aged < 1 Year Hospitalised With Respiratory and Non-Respiratory Medical Illness in South Africa, 2016-2018.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2025Article
- A preliminary evaluation of a fast, low-cost, and high-throughput nucleic acid extraction method for bacterial microbiota profiling in low-microbial biomass samples.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Viral load in hospitalized infants with respiratory syncytial virus bronchiolitis: a three-way comparative analysis.European journal of pediatrics · 2024Article
- Reply to Fabbris et al. A Viable Alternative. Comment on "Kohmer et al. Self-Collected Samples to Detect SARS-CoV-2: Direct Comparison of Saliva, Tongue Swab, Nasal Swab, Chewed Cotton Pads and Gargle Lavage.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Interactions of the bacteriome, virome, and immune system in the nose.FEMS microbes · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nasal pathogen detection sensitivities can be as low as 70% despite advances in molecular diagnostics. This may be linked to the choice of sampling method. A diagnostic test accuracy review for sensitivity was undertaken to compare sensitivity of swabbing to the nasopharynx and extracting nasal aspirates, using the PRISMA protocol, Cochrane rapid review methodology, and QUADAS-2 risk of bias tools, with meta-analysis of included studies. Sensitivities were calculated by a consensus standard of positivity by either method as the 'gold standard.' Insufficient sampling methodology, cross sectional study designs, and studies pooling samples across anatomical sites were excluded. Of 13 subsequently eligible studies, 8 had 'high' risk of bias, and 5 had 'high' applicability concerns. There were no statistical differences in overall sensitivities between collection methods for eight different viruses, and this did not differ with use of PCR, immunofluorescence, or culture. In one study alone, Influenza H1N1(2009) favored nasopharyngeal swabs, with aspirates having 93.3% of the sensitivity of swabs (
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.