ArticleMicroorganisms2024
Evaluation of a New Standardized Nasal Sampling Method for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA via RT-PCR.
Article in Microorganisms, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of self-collected anterior nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Article
- Standardization of Microsampling Technologies for Accurate Sensing and Reliable Diagnostics.ACS sensors · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of nasal sampling using a novel anterior nasal swab (ANS) (Rhinoswab) versus combined oro-nasopharyngeal (OP/NP) sampling in COVID-19 suspected patients. This prospective observational study was performed from 11 November to 2 December 2021 (part 1), and from 16 January to 22 February 2022 (part 2). Adult patients who attended the emergency room with suspected COVID-19 were asked to participate. One ANS and one OP/NP sample were consecutively collected, and both were analyzed via reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The result of the OP/NP sample was considered to be the reference standard. A total of 412 patients were included, of whom 171 (41.5%) had a positive RT-PCR of the OP/NP swab, whereas 139 (33.7%) were positive on the ANS sample. The overall diagnostic accuracy for ANS sampling in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value was 80.7% (95% CI 73.8-86.2), 99.6% (95% CI 97.3-100), 99.3% (95% CI 95.5-100), and 87.9% (95% CI 83.3-91.4), respectively. In conclusion, ANS sampling with the Rhinoswab identified 80.7% of all presented COVID-19 patients in an emergency department. Future studies should investigate if nasal Rhinoswab self-sampling is suitable for reliable diagnosis of COVID-19 in an outpatient setting.
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.