Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36758806›Full record

SynthesisTravel medicine and infectious disease

Nasal swab is a good alternative sample for detecting SARS-CoV-2 with rapid antigen test: A meta-analysis.

Jia-Wen Xie, Ya-Wen Zheng, Mao Wang, Yong Lin, Yun He, Li-Rong Lin

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Travel medicine and infectious disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jia-Wen XieCenter of Clinical Laboratory, Zhongshan Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China; Institute of Infectious Disease, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Ya-Wen ZhengCenter of Clinical Laboratory, Zhongshan Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China; Institute of Infectious Disease, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Mao WangCenter of Clinical Laboratory, Zhongshan Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China; Institute of Infectious Disease, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Yong LinCenter of Clinical Laboratory, Zhongshan Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China; Institute of Infectious Disease, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Yun HeCenter of Clinical Laboratory, Zhongshan Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China; Institute of Infectious Disease, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Li-Rong LinCenter of Clinical Laboratory, Zhongshan Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China; Institute of Infectious Disease, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China. Electronic address: linlirong@xmu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe aim to determine if nasal samples have equivalent detection sensitivity to nasopharyngeal swabs for RAT and evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of nasal swabs with RAT.

methodsPubMed and Web of Science were searched for eligible studies published before August 23, 2022. A bivariate random effects model was used to perform the quantitative synthesis.

resultsThe pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and summary AUC on nasal swabs with RAT were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.77-0.85), 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99-1.00), 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95-0.98), 298.91 (95% CI, 144.71-617.42) and 0.19 (95% CI, 0.15-0.23), respectively. WHO required RAT kits to perform with a sensitivity of 0.80 and a specificity of 0.97, nasal swabs (0.81) achieved the required sensitivity while nasopharyngeal swabs (0.75) did not. The symptomatic population yielded higher pooled sensitivity than the asymptomatic population (0.86 versus 0.71), with a pooled sensitivity of 0.90 for five days of symptom onset.

conclusionNasal sampling had a great performance and yielded a high sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2 using RAT, we believe that RAT performed with nasal swabs is a good alternative for detecting SARS-CoV-2, especially early in the onset of symptoms.

Indexed as

COVID-19HumansImmunologic TestsNoseSARS-CoV-2COVID-19Nasal swabsRapid antigen testSARS-CoV-2Self-test

Identifiers

PMID36758806
PMCPMC9909360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.