ArticleAPMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica2022
Diagnostic performance of patient self-collected oral swab (tongue and cheek) in comparison with healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal swab for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 detection.
Article in APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Self-swabbing versus assisted swabbing for viral detection by qRT-PCR: the experience from SARS-CoV-2 based on a meta-analysis of six prospectively designed evaluations conducted in a UK setting.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study was conducted to compare the performance of patient self-collected oral swab (OS) with healthcare worker (HCW)-collected nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in real-world setting. Paired OS and NPS were collected from 485 consecutive individuals presenting with symptoms of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) or asymptomatic contacts of COVID-19 cases. Both specimens were processed for RT-PCR and cycle threshold (Ct) value for each test was obtained. Positive percent agreement (PPA), negative percent agreement (NPA), overall percent agreement (OPA) and kappa were calculated for OS RT-PCR compared with NPS RT-PCR as reference. A total of 116/485 (23.9%) participants were positive by NPS RT-PCR. OS had PPA of 71.6%, NPA of 98.8%, OPA of 92.4% and kappa of 0.771. Almost all participants (483/485, 99.6%) reported OS as a convenient and comfortable sample for SARS-CoV-2 testing over NPS. All participants with Ct values <25 and majority (90.8%) with Ct values <30 were detected by OS. To conclude, OS self-sampling was preferred in comparison with NPS due the ease and comfort during collection. The performance of OS RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 detection, however, was sub-optimal in comparison with NPS RT-PCR.
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.