Trial reportArchives of disease in childhood2023
Lateral flow test performance in children for SARS-CoV-2 using anterior nasal and buccal swabbing: sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values.
Trial report in Archives of disease in childhood, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04629157 (The LAVA), which is not on this 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.
The LAVA (Lateral Flow Antigen Validation and Applicability) Study for COVID-19
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
11 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine if the sensitivity of the lateral flow test is dependent on the viral load and on the location of swabbing in the respiratory tract in children.
designPhase 1: Routinely performed reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) using nose and throat (NT) swabs or endotracheal (ET) aspirates were compared with Innova lateral flow tests (LFTs) using anterior nasal (AN) swabs. Phase 2: RT-PCR-positive children underwent paired AN RT-PCR and LFT and/or paired AN RT-PCR and buccal LFT.
settingTertiary paediatric hospitals. PATIENTS: Children under the age of 18 years. Phase 1: undergoing routine testing, phase 2: known SARS-CoV-2 positive.
resultsPhase 1: 435 paired swabs taken in 431 asymptomatic patients resulted in 8 positive RT-PCRs, 9 PCR test failures and 418 negative RT-PCRs from NT or ET swabs. The test performance of AN LFT demonstrated sensitivity: 25% (4%-59%), specificity: 100% (99%-100%), positive predictive value (PPV): 100% (18%-100%) and negative predictive value (NPV): 99% (97%-99%).Phase 2: 14 AN RT-PCR-positive results demonstrated a sensitivity of 77% (50%-92%) of LFTs performed on AN swabs. 15/16 paired buccal LFT swabs were negative.
conclusionThe NPV, PPV and specificity of LFTs are excellent. The sensitivity of LFTs compared with RT-PCR is good when the samples are colocated but may be reduced when the LFT swab is taken from the AN. Buccal swabs are not appropriate for LFT testing. Careful consideration of the swabbing reason, the tolerance of the child and the requirements for test processing (eg, rapidity of results) should be undertaken within hospital settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04629157.
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.