ArticleHeliyon2024
Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 quantification from oropharyngeal swabs, nasopharyngeal swabs, and naso-oropharyngeal swabs: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current naso-oropharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 detection faces several problems, such as waste issues and its use for quantitative studies. This study aimed to evaluate the total RNA and viral loads from different upper respiratory tract swabs types and whether SARS-CoV-2 quantification can use the current internal control for normalization. This cross-sectional study collected positive specimens with single oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal swabs and naso-oropharyngeal swabs. The samples were extracted, tested with qualitative RT‒PCR, and then tested with quantitative RT‒PCR. The RNA eluate was measured for the total RNA concentration. The total RNA concentration, viral load, and RNaseP Ct values were collected and analysed statistically. The positive results came from 41 oropharyngeal swabs, 34 nasopharyngeal swabs, and 36 naso-oropharyngeal swabs. The total RNA increased significantly from oropharyngeal swabs to nasopharyngeal swabs to naso-oropharyngeal swabs. Significant differences in RNaseP Ct values between groups and their correlations with total RNA were found. In addition, the increase in the total RNA and the RNaseP Ct values were unrelated to the viral load. The physical features in the naso-oropharyngeal area and the swabbing procedures could affect the total RNA but not the viral load. However, since the virus particles could present inside and outside human cells, the increase in collected human cells may not always be followed by the viral load increase. Normalization using the RNaseP Ct value became unnecessary due to the factors mentioned above. Therefore, a careful approach is needed in viral load studies of swab specimens.
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.