Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38064265›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

Internet Tool to Support Self-Assessment and Self-Swabbing of Sore Throat: Development and Feasibility Study.

Mark Lown, Kirsten A Smith, Ingrid Muller, Catherine Woods, Emma Maund, Kirsty Rogers, Taeko Becque, Gail Hayward, Michael Moore, Paul Little and 7 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Mark LownSchool of Computing, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8309-568X
Kirsten A SmithSchool of Computing, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9073-2130
Ingrid MullerSchool of Computing, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9341-6133
Catherine WoodsSchool of Computing, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2245-5773
Emma MaundSchool of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3998-6669
Kirsty RogersLocal Clinical Research Network Wessex, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5394-4003
Taeko BecqueSchool of Computing, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0362-3794
Gail HaywardNuffield Department of Primary Health Care Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0852-627X
Michael MooreSchool of Computing, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5127-4509
Paul LittleSchool of Computing, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3664-1873
Margaret GlogowskaNuffield Department of Primary Health Care Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8029-1052
Alastair HayCentre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3012-375X
Beth StuartPragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5432-7437
Efi MantzouraniCardiff School of Pharmacy, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6313-1409
Christopher R WilcoxSchool of Computing, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4361-0354
Natalie ThompsonSchool of Computing, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1880-6438
Nick A FrancisSchool of Computing, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8939-7312
University of Portsmouth · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBCardiff University · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSore throat is a common problem and a common reason for the overuse of antibiotics. A web-based tool that helps people assess their sore throat, through the use of clinical prediction rules, taking throat swabs or saliva samples, and taking throat photographs, has the potential to improve self-management and help identify those who are the most and least likely to benefit from antibiotics.

objectiveWe aimed to develop a web-based tool to help patients and parents or carers self-assess sore throat symptoms and take throat photographs, swabs, and saliva samples for diagnostic testing. We then explored the acceptability and feasibility of using the tool in adults and children with sore throats.

methodsWe used the Person-Based Approach to develop a web-based tool and then recruited adults and children with sore throats who participated in this study by attending general practices or through social media advertising. Participants self-assessed the presence of FeverPAIN and Centor score criteria and attempted to photograph their throat and take throat swabs and saliva tests. Study processes were observed via video call, and participants were interviewed about their views on using the web-based tool. Self-assessed throat inflammation and pus were compared to clinician evaluation of patients' throat photographs.

resultsA total of 45 participants (33 adults and 12 children) were recruited. Of these, 35 (78%) and 32 (71%) participants completed all scoring elements for FeverPAIN and Centor scores, respectively, and most (30/45, 67%) of them reported finding self-assessment relatively easy. No valid response was provided for swollen lymph nodes, throat inflammation, and pus on the throat by 11 (24%), 9 (20%), and 13 (29%) participants respectively. A total of 18 (40%) participants provided a throat photograph of adequate quality for clinical assessment. Patient assessment of inflammation had a sensitivity of 100% (3/3) and specificity of 47% (7/15) compared with the clinician-assessed photographs. For pus on the throat, the sensitivity was 100% (3/3) and the specificity was 71% (10/14). A total of 89% (40/45), 93% (42/45), 89% (40/45), and 80% (30/45) of participants provided analyzable bacterial swabs, viral swabs, saliva sponges, and saliva drool samples, respectively. Participants were generally happy and confident in providing samples, with saliva samples rated as slightly more acceptable than swab samples.

conclusionsMost adult and parent participants were able to use a web-based intervention to assess the clinical features of throat infections and generate scores using clinical prediction rules. However, some had difficulties assessing clinical signs, such as lymph nodes, throat pus, and inflammation, and scores were assessed as sensitive but not specific. Many participants had problems taking photographs of adequate quality, but most were able to take throat swabs and saliva samples.

Indexed as

PharyngitisSocial MediaAdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsChildFeasibility StudiesHumansInflammationSelf-AssessmentSuppurationAnti-Bacterial Agentsacceptabilityadultantibioticantibioticschildrenclinicaldentaldentistdevelopdevelopmentdiagnostic testingear, neck, throatfeasibilityinflammationlablaboratorymobile phonemouthneckoraloral healthpharyngitisprimary caresalivasamplesself-assessself-assessmentself-swabbingsocial mediasore throatsupportswabsymptomsteeththink-aloudthroattonguetonsiltooltoothweb-based support toolweb-based tool

Identifiers

PMID38064265
PMCPMC10746968
OpenAlexW4389489119

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.