Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35203697›Full record

ArticleBiomedicines2022

A Comparison of Pharyngeal Swabs and Tracheal Secretions for the Diagnosing of COVID-19.

Maibritt Meldgaard Arildsen, Sif Bay Glenting, Anette Marianne Fedder, Bettina Jørgensen, Svend Ellermann-Eriksen, Marianne Kragh Thomsen, Christina Catherine Dahm, Michael Pedersen

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedicines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 57% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Maibritt Meldgaard ArildsenComparative Medicine Lab, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, 8200 Aarhus, Denmark.
Sif Bay GlentingComparative Medicine Lab, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, 8200 Aarhus, Denmark.
Anette Marianne FedderEmergency Department, Aarhus University Hospital, 8200 Aarhus, Denmark.
Bettina JørgensenDepartment of Renal Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, 8200 Aarhus, Denmark.
Svend Ellermann-EriksenDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, Aarhus University Hospital, 8200 Aarhus, Denmark.
Marianne Kragh ThomsenDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, Aarhus University Hospital, 8200 Aarhus, Denmark.
Christina Catherine DahmResearch Unit for Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, 8000 Aarhus, Denmark.
Michael PedersenComparative Medicine Lab, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, 8200 Aarhus, Denmark.
Aarhus University · DKAarhus University Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the test results from patients who, within a short timescale, have been tested for COVID-19 using both a pharyngeal swab and tracheal secretion. Data were collected from the database of AUH, from patients hospitalized between 1 March 2020 and 1 March 2021 who, due to symptoms of COVID-19, were tested by a pharyngeal swab and by tracheal secretion. We found great agreement between oropharyngeal swab and tracheal secretion RT-PCR testing for the diagnosis of COVID-19, with 98.5% of double tests being concordant and only 1.5% being discordant. This finding may advocate a single-test strategy being either an oropharyngeal swab RT-PCR testing or tracheal secretion, although this study revealed 15.9% false negative oropharyngeal swabs.

Indexed as

comparisonCOVID-19pharyngeal swabSARS-CoV-2test methodstracheal suction

Identifiers

PMID35203697
PMCPMC8962317
OpenAlexW4212782930

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.