ArticleHealth science reports2023
Nasal swab as an alternative specimen for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.
Article in Health science reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of Frequent Point-of-Care Molecular COVID-19 Surveillance in a Rural Workplace: Nonrandomized Controlled Clinical Trial Among Miners.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2025Article
- Nasal swab as an alternative specimen for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.Health science reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has brought serious threats to public health worldwide. Nasopharyngeal, nasal swabs, and saliva specimens are used to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, limited data are available on the performance of less invasive nasal swab for testing COVID-19. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of nasal swabs with nasopharyngeal swabs using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) considering viral load, onset of symptoms, and disease severity. Methods: A total of 449 suspected COVIDCOVID-19 individuals were recruited. Both nasopharyngeal and nasal swabs were collected from the same individual. Viral RNA was extracted and tested by real-time RT-PCR. Metadata were collected using structured questionnaire and analyzed by SPSS and MedCalc software. Results: The overall sensitivity of the nasopharyngeal swab was 96.6%, and the nasal swab was 83.4%. The sensitivity of nasal swabs was more than 97.7% for low and moderate Conclusion: Less invasive nasal swab sampling with adequate sensitivity can be used as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by real-time RT-PCR.
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.