ReviewEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2022
Discrepancies of SARS-CoV-2 testing results among patients with total laryngectomy.
Review in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Very High Negative Concordance Rate of RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 in Nasopharyngeal Swab and Tracheo-Bronchial Aspirate in Children.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
- Perceptions and practices of people with a total laryngectomy during COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed methods analysis.American journal of otolaryngologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePrevention of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is obtained with nasopharyngeal swabs. By the way, there is no consensus regarding sampling in totally laryngectomized subjects (who thus breathe directly by the tracheostomy and, theoretically, may be infected in the trachea). The aim of this study is to evaluate possible differences between swab results in the trachea and in the nasopharynx of this category of patients.
methodsA retrospective chart review was performed in April 2021 among patients who previously had been operated on for total laryngectomy and who underwent swabs for SARS-CoV-2 research in 3 health-care centers in Northern-Eastern Italy. Data regarding the site of swabbing (trachea or nasopharynx) were analyzed. A comprehensive review of the literature regarding the same topic was then performed.
resultsA total of 25 totally laryngectomized subjects underwent swabs. Among them, 5 tested positive in the trachea (1) and in the nasopharynx (4). According to the literature review, 4 more subjects tested positive in the trachea (1) and in the nasopharynx (3). Data were overall divergent and no statistically significant correlations emerged between results of the tests performed in the two sites.
conclusionDue to these discrepancies, both tracheal and nasopharyngeal swabs are recommended in these kinds of patients, to obtain a reliable test and to avoid false negatives.
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.