Trial reportPediatrics2023
A COVID-19 Testing Preference Study in Schools.
Trial report in Pediatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies in reducing COVID-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- A qualitative descriptive study exploring perspectives on a school-based take-home COVID-19 saliva testing program.Paediatrics & child health · 2026Article
- Capture of Group ABioengineering & translational medicine · 2025Article
- A descriptive study on feasibility of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab collection from pediatric research participants in Cebu, Philippines.Frontiers in public health · 2025Observational
- Children and adolescents' experiences of mandatory SARS-CoV-2 testing in schools: a cross-sectional survey.BMJ paediatrics open · 2024Article
- Diagnostic testing preferences can help inform future public health response efforts: Global insights from an international survey.PLOS global public health · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identifies in-school COVID-19 testing as a key mitigation strategy to protect students and staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. Both nasal and saliva samples are acceptable, but existing school guidance does not state a preferred test method.
methodsFrom May 2021 through July 2021, we performed a randomized, crossover study in kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) schools to evaluate student and staff preference for self-collected nasal or saliva testing. Participants performed both collection types and participated in a standardized questionnaire assessing the preferred method.
resultsA total of 135 students and staff participated. Staff, middle school, and high school students preferred the nasal swab (80/96, 83%), whereas elementary students were mixed (20/39, 51% preferred saliva). Reasons reported for preferring the nasal swab included being faster and easier. Reasons reported for preferring saliva included being easier and more fun. Despite their preference, 126 (93%) and 109 (81%) participants would take the nasal swab or saliva test again, respectively.
conclusionsThe anterior nasal test was the preferred testing method by students and staff, although preference varied by age group. Willingness to perform both tests again in the future was high. Identifying the preferred testing modality is important to increase acceptance and participation in COVID-19 in-school testing programs.
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.