Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36453913›Full record

ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2022

Direct Nasal Swab for Rapid Test and Saliva as an Alternative Biological Sample for RT-PCR in COVID-19 Diagnosis.

Saiful Arefeen Sazed, Mohammad Golam Kibria, Md Fahad Zamil, Mohammad Sharif Hossain, Jeba Zaman Khan, Rifat Tasnim Juthi, Mohammad Enayet Hossain, Dilruba Ahmed, Zannatun Noor, Rashidul Haque and 1 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiology spectrum, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Saiful Arefeen SazedInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research Bangladesh (icddr,b), Mohakhali, Bangladesh.
Mohammad Golam KibriaInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research Bangladesh (icddr,b), Mohakhali, Bangladesh.
Md Fahad ZamilInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research Bangladesh (icddr,b), Mohakhali, Bangladesh.
Mohammad Sharif HossainInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research Bangladesh (icddr,b), Mohakhali, Bangladesh.
Jeba Zaman KhanInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research Bangladesh (icddr,b), Mohakhali, Bangladesh.
Rifat Tasnim JuthiInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research Bangladesh (icddr,b), Mohakhali, Bangladesh.
Mohammad Enayet HossainInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research Bangladesh (icddr,b), Mohakhali, Bangladesh.ORCID 0000-0001-5511-1857
Dilruba AhmedInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research Bangladesh (icddr,b), Mohakhali, Bangladesh.
Zannatun NoorInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research Bangladesh (icddr,b), Mohakhali, Bangladesh.
Rashidul HaqueInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research Bangladesh (icddr,b), Mohakhali, Bangladesh.
Mohammad Shafiul AlamInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research Bangladesh (icddr,b), Mohakhali, Bangladesh.ORCID 0000-0001-8330-5499
International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research · BD

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate and early diagnoses are prerequisites for prompt treatment. For coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), it is even more crucial. Currently, choice of methods include rapid diagnostic tests and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) using samples mostly of respiratory origin and sometimes saliva. We evaluated two rapid diagnostic tests with three specimen types using viral transport medium (VTM) containing naso-oropharyngeal (NOP) swabs, direct nasal and direct nasopharyngeal (NP) samples from 428 prospective patients. We also performed RT-PCR for 428 NOP VTM and 316 saliva samples to compare results. The sensitivity of the SD Biosensor Standard Q COVID-19 antigen (Ag) test kit drastically raised from an average of 65.55% (NOP VTM) to 85.25% (direct nasal samples), while RT-PCR was the gold standard. For the CareStart kit, the sensitivity was almost similar for direct NP swabs; the average was 84.57%. The specificities were ≥95% for both SD Biosensor Standard Q and CareStart COVID-19 Ag tests in all platforms. The kits were also able to detect patients with different variants as well. Alternatively, RT-PCR results from saliva and NOP VTM samples showed high sensitivities of 96.45% and 95.48% with respect to each other as standard. The overall results demonstrated high performance of the rapid tests, indicating the suitability for regular surveillance at clinical facilities when using direct nasal or direct NP samples rather than NOP VTM. Additionally, the analysis also signifies not showed that RT-PCR of saliva can be used as an choice of method to RT-PCR of NOP VTM, providing an easier, non-invasive sample collection method.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 TestingHumansProspective StudiesReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionSalivaSpecimen HandlingCOVID-19rapid diagnostic testsRT-PCRsalivasalivary specimenSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID36453913
PMCPMC9769842
OpenAlexW4310570364

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.