ArticleFuture healthcare journal2024
Implementation of facemask sampling for the detection of infectious individuals with SARS-CoV-2 in high stakes clinical examinations - a feasibility study.
Article in Future healthcare journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Letter to the editor: 'Implementation of facemask sampling for the detection of infectious individuals with SARS-CoV-2 in high stakes clinical examinationsFuture healthcare journal · 2025Article
- Authors' response: 'Implementation of facemask sampling for the detection of infectious individuals with SARS-CoV-2 in high stakes clinical examinations - a feasibility study'.Future healthcare journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: SARS-CoV-2 may transmit across vaccinated cohorts during practical clinical examinations. We sought to assess the feasibility of facemask sampling (FMS) to identify individuals emitting SARS-CoV-2 during a mock PACES exam. Methods: In May 2022 we recruited participants from a mock PACES examination in Leicester, UK. Following a negative lateral flow test assay, all participants wore modified facemasks able to capture exhaled virus during the assessment (FMS). A concomitant upper respiratory tract sample (URTS) was provided prior to FMS. Exposed facemasks were processed by removal and dissolution of sampling matrices fixed within the mask and cycle thresholds values quantified by RT-qPCR. Participants were asked to grade statements regarding the comfort, effort, ethics and communication when providing FMS; laboratory technicians were asked to grade key statements surrounding suitability of samples for processing. Results: 34 participants provided concomitant URTS and FMS during the examination. One participant was positive for SARS-CoV-2, with a cycle threshold value of 22.5 on URTS, but negative (no viral RNA detected) on FMS; no transmission to others was identified from this individual. Participants responded positively to statements regarding FMS describing all four domains; however, 69% of participants felt that a positive result from FMS alone was insufficient for diagnosis and that further tests were required. All but one FMS sample was suitable for processing. Discussion: FMS during PACES exams are acceptable among participants and samples provided are suitable for processing. Our results demonstrate feasibility of FMS within practical examination settings and support the further assessment of FMS as a scalable tool that can be compared with URTS to identify those who are infectious.
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.