ArticleThe Indian journal of medical research2022
Performance & clinical utility of oropharyngeal versus nasopharyngeal swabs in COVID-19.
Article in The Indian journal of medical research, 2022. 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
25 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & objectives: The oropharyngeal (OP) and nasopharyngeal (NP) swab samples are the most recommended clinical specimens for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in an individual through the quantitative real-time reverse-transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) method. The primary objective of this study was to compare the performance of NP and OP swabs for the diagnosis of COVID-19 among 2250 concomitant samples (1125 NP + 1125 OP) using rRT-PCR test. Methods: This study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in southern India. The study compared the specificity and efficacy of the two samples (NP & OP swabs) in 1125 individuals suspected having COVID-19 infection. The rRT-PCR values from all the samples were compared based on gender, age group and viral load. The differences between unmatched proportion and matched proportion were analysed. Agreement between the two methods was assessed using Kappa statistic. Absolute sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) for OP and NP swabs were analysed. Results: The study identified a fair degree of agreement between OP and NP swabs in diagnosis of COVID-19 (kappa = 0.275, P <0.001). There was also a fair degree of agreement between NP and OP swabs irrespective of gender, age or duration of symptoms. NP swabs had better sensitivity and NPV as compared to OP swabs, however, specificity and PPV were 100 per cent for both. Interpretation & conclusions: The present study showed that both OP and NP swabs had similar sensitivity and specificity for predicting the presence of SARS-CoV-2.
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.