Trial reportBMC pediatrics2023
A novel anterior nasal swab to detect respiratory viruses: a prospective study of diagnostic accuracy.
Trial report in BMC pediatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05043623 (Diagnosis of Respiratory Viruses in Children With Rhinoswab Junior), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 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.
Diagnosis of Respiratory Viruses in Children With Rhinoswab Junior
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of 2 cm Versus 4 cm Insertion Depth for Nasal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Testing-A Randomized Controlled Trial.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of self-collected anterior nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Article
- Limited nasal IFN production contributes to delayed respiratory virus clearance and suboptimal vaccine responses.JCI insight · 2025Article
- Standardization of Microsampling Technologies for Accurate Sensing and Reliable Diagnostics.ACS sensors · 2025Review
- Evaluation of a New Standardized Nasal Sampling Method for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA via RT-PCR.Microorganisms · 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
14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Detection of respiratory viruses requires testing of the upper respiratory tract to obtain specimens for analysis. However, nasal and throat swabs can cause discomfort and procedural anxiety in children. Respiratory sampling methods which are accurate and less invasive are needed. We aim to determine the positive and negative percentage agreement of a novel anterior nasal swab (ANS) compared with the combined throat and anterior nasal swab (CTN), the reference standard, for detection of respiratory viruses. Children 5 - 18 years of age presenting to a tertiary paediatric hospital with respiratory symptoms were tested with both swabs in randomised order. Respiratory samples were tested on a multiplex RT-PCR panel. Viral detections, RT-PCR cycle-threshold values and child/parent/clinician experience of the swab were recorded. There were 157 viral detections from 249 participant CTN swabs. In comparison with the CTN, the overall positive and negative percentage agreement of ANS for detection of respiratory viruses was 96.2% (95% CI, 91.8-98.3%) and 99.8% (95% CI, 99.6-99.9%), respectively. The ANS was "extremely comfortable", or only a "little uncomfortable" for 90% of children compared with 48% for CTN. 202 children (84%) rated the ANS as the preferred swab, and 208 (87%) indicated they would prefer ANS for future testing. The ANS required additional laboratory handling processes compared to the CTN. The ANS has high positive percentage agreement and is comparable to the current standard of care. The high acceptability from the less invasive ANS provides a more comfortable method for respiratory virus testing in children.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05043623.
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.