Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35802720›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Nasopharyngeal swabs vs. saliva sampling for SARS-CoV-2 detection: A cross-sectional survey of acceptability for caregivers and children after experiencing both methods.

François Gagnon, Maala Bhatt, Roger Zemek, Richard J Webster, Stephanie Johnson-Obaseki, Stuart Harman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Detection of Respiratory Pathogens in Saliva and Mouthwash Samples in Children.Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Predicting Nasopharyngeal Depth in Children Using Body Measurements: A Pilot Study.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale
    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

6 authors.

François GagnonDivision of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9857-156X
Maala BhattDivision of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Roger ZemekDivision of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Richard J WebsterChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Stephanie Johnson-ObasekiDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Stuart HarmanDivision of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSaliva sampling is a promising alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing, but acceptability data is lacking. We characterize the acceptability of saliva sampling and nasopharyngeal swabs for primary decision makers and their children after experiencing both testing modalities.

methodsWe administered a cross-sectional survey to participants aged 6-to-17 years and their primary decision makers at an Ottawa community COVID-19 testing centre in March 2021. Included were participants meeting local guidelines for testing. Excluded were those identified prior to participation as having inability to complete the consent, sampling, or survey process. Acceptability in multiple hypothetical scenarios was rated using a 5-point Likert scale. Pain was measured using the Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R). Preference for testing was assessed with direct binary questions.

results48 participants and 48 primary decision makers completed the survey. Nasopharyngeal swab acceptability differed between scenarios, ranging 79% [95%CI: 66, 88] to 100% [95%CI: 95, 100]; saliva sampling acceptability was similar across scenarios, ranging 92% [95%CI: 82, 97] to 98% [95%CI: 89, 99]. 58% of youth described significant pain with nasopharyngeal swabbing, versus none with saliva sampling. 90% of children prefer saliva sampling. 66% of primary decision makers would prefer nasopharyngeal swabbing if it were 10% more sensitive.

conclusionThough youth prefer saliva sampling over nasopharyngeal swabs, primary decision makers present for testing remain highly accepting of both. Acceptance of nasopharyngeal swabs, however, varies with the testing indication and is influenced by perceived test accuracy. Understanding factors that influence sampling acceptance will inform more successful testing strategies.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2AdolescentCaregiversChildCOVID-19 TestingCross-Sectional StudiesHumansNasopharynxPainSalivaSpecimen Handling

Identifiers

PMID35802720
PMCPMC9269879

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.