ArticleJournal of paediatrics and child health2023
Stick with the nose…Saliva rapid antigen testing is not a viable method for testing children under 5 years old.
Article in Journal of paediatrics and child health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimRespiratory testing with rapid antigen tests (RATs) in children under 5 years of age may be uncomfortable and presents specific challenges to testing due to compliance and procedural distress. The aim of this study was to investigate sensitivity and feasibility of self-collected nasal and saliva RAT tests compared with a combined nose and throat (CTN) swab PCR in children under 5.
methodsChildren aged between 1 month and 5 years, with confirmed COVID-19 or who were a household contact within 7 days were included. A saliva RAT, nasal RAT and CTN swab were collected by the parent. SARS-CoV-2 cycle threshold (Ct) values for CTN tested by PCR were compared with saliva and nasal RAT results. Parent preference for method of sample was recorded.
resultsForty-one children were recruited with median age of 1.5 (interquartile range 0.7-4.0) years. Only 22/41 (54%) of parents were able to successfully collect a saliva RAT from their child. Sensitivity of the nasal RAT and saliva RAT was 0.889 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.739-0.969) and 0.158 (95% CI 0.034-0.396), respectively. Upper limit of nasal RAT detection by CTN Ct value was higher than saliva (36.05 vs. 27.29). While saliva RAT was rated most comfortable, nasal RAT was rated the preferred specimen by parents for future testing, due to saliva collection difficulties and time taken.
conclusionsRapid antigen testing with nasal RAT is a more feasible and sensitive method for SARS-CoV-2 detection in young children compared with saliva RAT.
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.