Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38055280›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2023

COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Tests With Self-Collected vs Health Care Worker-Collected Nasal and Throat Swab Specimens: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Tobias Todsen, Kathrine K Jakobsen, Mathias Peter Grønlund, Rasmus E Callesen, Fredrik Folke, Helene Larsen, Annette Kjær Ersbøll, Thomas Benfield, Tobias Gredal, Mads Klokker and 2 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05209178 (Diagnostic Accuracy of Self-collected Versus Healthcare Collected Anterior Nose Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Detection - a Randomized Controlled Trial.), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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.

NCT05209178 nacompletednot on this map

Diagnostic Accuracy of Self-collected Versus Healthcare Collected Anterior Nose Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Detection - a Randomized Controlled Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorRigshospitalet, DenmarkRan2022 to 2022Enrolled3,070ConditionsCOVID-19 PandemicArmsCollection of nasal and oropharyngeal specimen for COVID19 antigen test
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Comparison of a Commercial SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test with Real-Time PCR.Infectious diseases & clinical microbiology · 2024
    Article
  7. 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
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tobias TodsenDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Kathrine K JakobsenDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mathias Peter GrønlundDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Rasmus E CallesenDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Fredrik FolkeDepartment of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Helene LarsenCenter for Diagnostics, Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
Annette Kjær ErsbøllCopenhagen Emergency Medical Services, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Thomas BenfieldDepartment of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Tobias GredalCopenhagen Emergency Medical Services, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mads KlokkerDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Nikolai KirkbyDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Christian von BuchwaldDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
University of Copenhagen · DKCopenhagen University Hospital · DKTechnical University of Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Self- or health care worker (HCW)-collected nasal swab specimens are the preferred sampling method to perform rapid antigen testing for COVID-19, but it is debated whether throat specimens can improve test sensitivity. Objective: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of self- and HCW-collected nasal vs throat swab specimens for COVID-19 rapid antigen testing. Design, Setting, and Participants: This per-protocol multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted from February 15 through March 25, 2022. The participants, individuals aged 16 years or older requesting a COVID-19 test for diagnostic or screening purposes, had 4 specimens collected for individual testing at 1 of 2 urban COVID-19 outpatient test centers in Copenhagen, Denmark. Interventions: Participants were randomized 1:1 to self-collected or HCW-collected nasal and throat swab specimens for rapid antigen testing. Additional HCW-collected nasal and throat swab specimens for reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) were used as the reference standard. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was sensitivity to diagnose COVID-19 of a self- vs HCW-collected nasal and throat specimen for rapid antigen testing compared with RT-PCR. Results: Of 2941 participants enrolled, 2674 (90.9%) had complete test results and were included in the final analysis (1535 [57.4%] women; median age, 40 years [IQR, 28-55 years]); 1074 (40.2%) had COVID-19 symptoms, and 827 (30.9%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. Health care worker-collected throat specimens had higher mean sensitivity than HCW-collected nasal specimens for rapid antigen testing (69.4% [95% CI, 65.1%-73.6%] vs 60.0% [95% CI, 55.4%-64.5%]). However, a subgroup analysis of symptomatic participants found that self-collected nasal specimens were more sensitive than self-collected throat specimens for rapid antigen testing (mean sensitivity, 71.5% [95% CI, 65.3%-77.6%] vs 58.0% [95% CI, 51.2%-64.7%]; P < .001). Combining nasal and throat specimens increased sensitivity for HCW- and self-collected specimens by 21.4 and 15.5 percentage points, respectively, compared with a single nasal specimen (both P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that a single HCW-collected throat specimen had higher sensitivity for rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 than a nasal specimen. In contrast, the self-collected nasal specimens had higher sensitivity than throat specimens for symptomatic participants. Adding a throat specimen to the standard practice of collecting a single nasal specimen could improve sensitivity for rapid antigen testing in health care and home-based settings. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05209178.

Indexed as

COVID-19AdultCOVID-19 TestingFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMalePharynxSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID38055280
PMCPMC10701611
OpenAlexW4389377197

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.