ArticleInfection and drug resistance2024
Clinical Performance of Self-Collected Purified Water Gargle for Detection of Influenza a Virus Infection by Real-Time RT-PCR.
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Self-collected specimens are increasingly being used as alternatives to swab-based methods for the detection of respiratory viruses. While saliva is well accepted, gargle specimens are a potential alternative with characteristics that are more favorable for laboratory handling. This study assessed the performance of gargle specimens in the detection of influenza A viruses (IAVs). Patients and Methods: We performed a prospective head-to-head comparison between combined nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs (NPS&OPS) and purified water gargle (PWG) among adult outpatients with febrile respiratory symptoms to detect IAVs using real-time RT-PCR during two influenza seasons. Results: During study periods 1 (July 13 to 26, 2022, H3N2 predominated) and 2 (February 25 to March 10, 2023, H1N1 pdm09 predominated), a total of 459 patients were recruited. The overall agreement between the NPS&OPS and PWG was 85.0% (390/459, κ = 0.697), with 88.0% in period 1 and 82.6% in period 2. The detection rate of IAVs in PWG (51.6%, 237/459) was lower than that in NPS&OPS (62.3%, 286/459) (p < 0.0001). The overall sensitivity and specificity were 96.6% (93.7-98.3%) and 100% (97.1-100%) in NPS&OPS and were 80.1% (75.0-84.4%) and 100% (97.1-100%) in PWG, respectively. Among the 227 pairs of concordant positive specimens, cycle threshold (Ct) values were significantly lower in NPS&OPS than in PWG (median Ct values: 24.2, 28.2, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Although self-collected PWG specimens offer acceptable performance for IAVs molecular testing, NPS&OPS remain a reliable option. Given the convenience of collection, nonviscous gargles are recommended for viral detection during emergencies or under specific conditions.
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.