Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35535382›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical virology2022

Evaluation of water gargle samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection using Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 assay.

Simon Lévesque, Stéphanie Beauchemin, Maud Vallée, Jean Longtin, Mariève Jacob-Wagner, Jeannot Dumaresq, Carlos Dulcey, Annie-Claude Labbé

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical virology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Simon LévesqueService de microbiologie, CIUSSS de l'Estrie-Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada.
Stéphanie BeaucheminDépartement des laboratoires de biologie médicale, Grappe Optilab-CHUM, Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Maud ValléeLaboratoire de santé publique du Québec, Institut national de santé publique du Québec, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Québec, Canada.
Jean LongtinDépartement de microbiologie et d'infectiologie du centre hospitalier universitaire (CHU) de Québec-Université Laval, Québec, Québec, Canada.
Mariève Jacob-WagnerDépartement de microbiologie et d'infectiologie du centre hospitalier universitaire (CHU) de Québec-Université Laval, Québec, Québec, Canada.
Jeannot DumaresqDépartement de microbiologie et d'infectiologie du centre hospitalier universitaire (CHU) de Québec-Université Laval, Québec, Québec, Canada.
Carlos DulceyDépartement des laboratoires de biologie médicale, Grappe Optilab-CHUM, Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Annie-Claude LabbéDépartement des laboratoires de biologie médicale, Grappe Optilab-CHUM, Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8936-3307

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Abbott ID NOW™ COVID-19 assay has been shown as a reliable and sensitive alternative to reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing from nasopharyngeal or nasal samples in symptomatic patients. Water gargle is an acceptable noninvasive alternative specimen for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection by RT-PCR. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of water gargle samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 using the ID NOW. Residual gargle samples were randomly selected among positive standard of care (SOC)-nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) samples. For testing on ID NOW, the manufacturer's instructions were followed, except for the specimen addition step: 500 µl of the gargle specimen was added to the blue sample receiver with a pipette and gently mixed. Among the 202 positive samples by SOC-NAAT, 185 were positive by ID NOW (positive percent agreement [PPA]) = 91.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 86.9-95.0). For the 17 discordant samples, cycle threshold (C

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2Clinical Laboratory TechniquesCOVID-19 TestingHumansNasopharynxSensitivity and SpecificityWaterWaterAbbott ID NOWCOVID-19gargleSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID35535382
PMCPMC9348367

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.