Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37796850›Full record

Observational studyPloS one2023

Index cases first identified by nasal-swab rapid COVID-19 tests had more transmission to household contacts than cases identified by other test types.

Jenny Ji, Alexander Viloria Winnett, Natasha Shelby, Jessica A Reyes, Noah W Schlenker, Hannah Davich, Saharai Caldera, Colten Tognazzini, Ying-Ying Goh, Matt Feaster and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Validating Combination Throat-Nasal Swab Specimens for COVID-19 Tests Would Improve Early Detection, Especially for the Most Vulnerable.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024
    Article
  7. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jenny JiCalifornia Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, United States of America.
Alexander Viloria WinnettCalifornia Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, United States of America.
Natasha ShelbyCalifornia Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9097-3663
Jessica A ReyesCalifornia Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, United States of America.
Noah W SchlenkerCalifornia Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, United States of America.
Hannah DavichCalifornia Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, United States of America.
Saharai CalderaCalifornia Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, United States of America.
Colten TognazziniPasadena Public Health Department, Pasadena, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2754-3588
Ying-Ying GohPasadena Public Health Department, Pasadena, California, United States of America.
Matt FeasterPasadena Public Health Department, Pasadena, California, United States of America.
Rustem F IsmagilovCalifornia Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3680-4399
California Institute of Technology · USPasadena City College · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

At-home rapid COVID-19 tests in the U.S. utilize nasal-swab specimens and require high viral loads to reliably give positive results. Longitudinal studies from the onset of infection have found infectious virus can present in oral specimens days before nasal. Detection and initiation of infection-control practices may therefore be delayed when nasal-swab rapid tests are used, resulting in greater transmission to contacts. We assessed whether index cases first identified by rapid nasal-swab COVID-19 tests had more transmission to household contacts than index cases who used other test types (tests with higher analytical sensitivity and/or non-nasal specimen types). In this observational cohort study, 370 individuals from 85 households with a recent COVID-19 case were screened at least daily by RT-qPCR on one or more self-collected upper-respiratory specimen types. A two-level random intercept model was used to assess the association between the infection outcome of household contacts and each covariable (household size, race/ethnicity, age, vaccination status, viral variant, infection-control practices, and whether a rapid nasal-swab test was used to initially identify the household index case). Transmission was quantified by adjusted secondary attack rates (aSAR) and adjusted odds ratios (aOR). An aSAR of 53.6% (95% CI 38.8-68.3%) was observed among households where the index case first tested positive by a rapid nasal-swab COVID-19 test, which was significantly higher than the aSAR for households where the index case utilized another test type (27.2% 95% CI 19.5-35.0%, P = 0.003 pairwise comparisons of predictive margins). We observed an aOR of 4.90 (95% CI 1.65-14.56) for transmission to household contacts when a nasal-swab rapid test was used to identify the index case, compared to other test types. Use of nasal-swab rapid COVID-19 tests for initial detection of infection and initiation of infection control may be less effective at limiting transmission to household contacts than other test types.

Indexed as

COVID-19Cohort StudiesFamily CharacteristicsHumansNoseSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID37796850
PMCPMC10553276
OpenAlexW4387378951

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.