ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2023
Comparison of Nasal Swabs, Nasopharyngeal Swabs, and Saliva Samples for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 and other Respiratory Virus Infections.
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Saliva as a Reliable and Non-invasive Sample for Detecting Influenza A in Severe Acute Respiratory Infection Cases.Cureus · 2026Article
- Misidentification of Human Coronavirus HKU1 as OC43 by the Seegene Allplex Respiratory Panel Real-time PCR Assay.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2025Article
- The Human Nasal Microbiome: A Perspective Study During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic in Malta.Microorganisms · 2024Article
- Molecular characterization of human respiratory syncytial virus strains circulating among hospitalized children in Jordan.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Specimen adequacy assay controls in nucleic acid amplification tests do not correlate with nasopharyngeal swab collection method.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Performance evaluation of the Panbio COVID-19/Flu A&B Panel for detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, and influenza B antigens using mid-turbinate nasal swabs.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Diagnostic performance, stability, and acceptability of self-collected saliva without additives for SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnosis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024Article
- At-home testing for respiratory viruses: a minireview of the current landscape.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Review
- Modified streptavidin-biotin based lateral flow test strip for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 S1 antigen in saliva samples.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Impact of Swabbing Location, Self-Swabbing, and Food Intake on SARS-CoV-2 RNA Detection.Microorganisms · 2024Article
- Performance Evaluation of the STANDARD i-Q COVID-19 Ag Test with Nasal and Oral Swab Specimens from Symptomatic Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Nasal swabs and saliva samples are being considered alternatives to nasopharyngeal swabs (NPSs) for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2); however, few studies have compared the usefulness of nasal swabs, NPSs, and saliva samples for detecting SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory virus infections. We compared the positivity rates and concentrations of viruses detected in nasal swabs, NPSs, and saliva samples using cycle threshold (Ct) values from real-time PCR tests for respiratory viruses. Methods: In total, 236 samples (48 five-rub and 10 10-rub nasal swabs, 96 NPSs collected using two different products, 48 saliva swabs, and 34 undiluted saliva samples) from 48 patients (34 patients with SARS-CoV-2 and 14 with other respiratory virus infections) and 40 samples from eight healthy controls were obtained. The PCR positivity and Ct values were compared using Allplex Respiratory Panels 1/2/3 and Allplex SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR. Results: NPSs showed the lowest Ct values (indicating the highest virus concentrations); however, nasal and saliva samples yielded positive results for SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses. The median Ct value for SARS-CoV-2 Conclusions: Our results confirm that the NPS is the best sample type for detecting respiratory viruses, but nasal swabs and saliva samples can be alternatives to NPSs. Vigorously and sufficiently rubbed nasal swabs can provide SARS-CoV-2 concentrations similar to those obtained with NPSs.
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.