Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35258088›Full record

ArticleThe journal of applied laboratory medicine2022

One Swab Fits All: Performance of a Rapid, Antigen-Based SARS-CoV-2 Test Using a Nasal Swab, Nasopharyngeal Swab for Nasal Collection, and RT-PCR Confirmation from Residual Extraction Buffer.

William Stokes, Byron M Berenger, Brittney Scott, Jonas Szelewicki, Takshveer Singh, Danielle Portnoy, LeeAnn Turnbull, Kanti Pabbaraju, Sandy Shokoples, Anita A Wong and 3 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of applied laboratory medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

William StokesAlberta Precision Laboratories, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8684-0494
Byron M BerengerAlberta Precision Laboratories, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Brittney ScottFaculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Jonas SzelewickiFaculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Takshveer SinghCumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Danielle PortnoyFaculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
LeeAnn TurnbullAlberta Precision Laboratories, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Kanti PabbarajuAlberta Precision Laboratories, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Sandy ShokoplesAlberta Precision Laboratories, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Anita A WongAlberta Precision Laboratories, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Kara GillAlberta Precision Laboratories, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Jia HuDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Graham TipplesAlberta Precision Laboratories, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
University of Alberta · CACalgary Laboratory Services · CAAlberta Hospital Edmonton · CAUniversity of Calgary · CAAlberta Health Services · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPoint-of-care SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests have great potential to help combat the COVID-19 pandemic. In the performance of a rapid, antigen-based SARS-CoV-2 test (RAT), our study had 3 main objectives: to determine the accuracy of nasal swabs, the accuracy of using nasopharyngeal swabs for nasal collection (nasalNP), and the effectiveness of using residual extraction buffer for real-time reverse-transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) confirmation of positive RAT (rPan).

methodsSymptomatic adults recently diagnosed with COVID-19 in the community were recruited into the study. Nasal samples were collected using either a nasalNP or nasal swab and tested immediately with the RAT in the individual's home by a health care provider. 500 µL of universal transport media was added to the residual extraction buffer after testing and sent to the laboratory for SARS-CoV-2 testing using RT-PCR. Parallel throat swabs tested with RT-PCR were used as the reference comparators.

resultsOne hundred and fifty-five individuals were included in the study (99 nasal swabs, 56 nasalNP). Sensitivities of nasal samples tested on the RAT using either nasal or nasalNP were 89.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 80.7%-94.6%] and 90.2% (95% CI 78.6%-96.7%), respectively. rPan positivity agreement compared to throat RT-PCR was 96.2%.

conclusionsRAT reliably detect SARS-CoV-2 from symptomatic adults in the community presenting within 7 days of symptom onset using nasal swabs or nasalNP. High agreement with rPan can avoid the need for collecting a second swab for RT-PCR confirmation or testing of variants of concern from positive RAT in this population.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2COVID-19 TestingHumansNasopharynxPandemicsReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionantigenCOVID-19nasal swabPOCTrapid diagnosticsSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID35258088
PMCPMC8992337
OpenAlexW4206292681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.