ArticleJournal of virological methods2022
Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in combined nasal-and-throat swabs collected from COVID-19 individuals under the Universal Community Testing Programme in Hong Kong.
Article in Journal of virological methods, 2022. 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluation of rapid antigen detection kits for detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 virus.Future virology · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCombined nasal-and-throat swabs (CNTS) is less invasive and easy to execute. CNTS also induces lower risk to healthcare workers upon collection. However, there is a lack of data on viral load assessment for population-wide testing.
objectiveThis study assessed if CNTS is suitable as an alternative specimen type for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.
methodsWe assessed the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in CNTS collected from COVID-19 individuals through the 2-week period of the Universal Community Testing Programme (UCTP) conducted in Hong Kong. In addition, we compared viral loads of SARS-CoV-2 for the paired CNTS and non-CNTS specimens among these individuals.
resultsThis UCTP identified 48 COVID-19 individuals from nearly 2 million specimens collected. The viral loads of SARS-CoV-2 varied widely, cycle threshold values Ct 16.28-36.94, among symptoms and asymptomatic individuals. The viral loads for the paired CNTS and non-CNTS specimens were comparable.
conclusionsThis study demonstrated that CNTS could be a specimen of choice for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2.
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.