ArticlePloS one2022
Specimen self-collection for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Patient performance and preferences-Atlanta, Georgia, August-October 2020.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptions of a Diverse Group of U.S. Women on the Ease of Vaginal Self-Sampling for Cancer Detection.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Specimen adequacy assay controls in nucleic acid amplification tests do not correlate with nasopharyngeal swab collection method.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Using implementation science to evaluate a population-wide genomic screening program: Findings from the first 20,000 In Our DNA SC participants.American journal of human genetics · 2024Article
- Performance Analysis of Self-Collected Nasal and Oral Swabs for Detection of SARS-CoV-2.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Self-collected specimens can expand access to SARS-CoV-2 testing. At a large inner-city hospital 1,082 participants self-collected saliva and anterior nasal swab (ANS) samples before healthcare workers collected nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples on the same day. To characterize patient preferences for self-collection, this investigation explored ability, comfort, and ease of ANS and saliva self-collection for SARS-CoV-2 testing along with associated patient characteristics, including medical history and symptoms of COVID-19. With nearly all participants successfully submitting a specimen, favorable ratings from most participants (at least >79% in ease and comfort), and equivocal preference between saliva and ANS, self-collection is a viable SARS-CoV-2 testing option.
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.