Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39806484›Full record

ArticleBMC global and public health2025

Effectiveness and user experience of nose and throat swabbing techniques for SARS-CoV-2 detection: results from the UK COVID-19 National Testing Programme.

Matthias E Futschik, Raghavendran Kulasegaran-Shylini, Edward Blandford, Sean Harper, David Chapman, Elena Turek, Somya Agrawal, Valerie Phillips, Hannah Fordham, Lee Chan and 9 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC global and public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Matthias E Futschik *UK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Raghavendran Kulasegaran-Shylini *UK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Edward BlandfordUK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Sean HarperUK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
David ChapmanUK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Elena TurekUK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Somya AgrawalUK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Valerie PhillipsUK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Hannah FordhamUK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Lee ChanUK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Mike KiddUK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Andrew DodgsonUK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Paul E KlapperUK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Malur SudhanvaUK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Richard VipondUK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Susan HopkinsUK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Tim PetoHealth Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associate Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, National Institute for Health Research, Oxford, UK.
Sarah TunkelUK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Tom FowlerUK Health Security Agency, London, UK. tom.fowler2@ukhsa.gov.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe UK's National Health Service Test and Trace (NHSTT) program aimed to provide the most effective and accessible SARS-CoV-2 testing approach possible. Early user feedback indicated that there were accessibility issues associated with throat swabbing. We report the results of service evaluations performed by NHSTT to assess the effectiveness and user acceptance of swabbing approaches, as well as qualitative findings of user experiences from research reports, surveys, and incident reports. Our intent is to present and summarize our findings about the application of alternative swabbing approaches during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.

methodsFrom May 2020 to December 2021, NHSTT conducted a series of service evaluations assessing self-swabbing and assisted swabbing of the nose and throat, and nose only (anterior nares/mid-turbinate) using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and lateral flow devices (LFDs), for diagnostic suitability within the COVID-19 National Testing Programme. Outcomes included observational user feedback on swabbing approaches and quantitative testing performance (concordance, sensitivity, and specificity). A post-hoc indirect comparison of swabbing approaches was also performed. Additionally, an analysis of existing cross-service research was conducted in April 2021 to determine user feedback regarding swabbing approaches.

resultsObservational data from cross-service research indicated a user preference for nose swabbing over throat swabbing. Significantly more users reported that nose swabbing was easier to perform than throat swabbing (50% vs. 12%) and there were significantly fewer reported incidents. In the service evaluations, while there was reduced sensitivity for nose-only swabbing for PCR (88%) compared with nose and throat swabbing, similar sensitivities were observed for nose-only and nose and throat swabbing for LFDs. The sensitivity of nose-only swabbing for LFDs was higher for individuals with higher viral concentrations.

conclusionsUser experience analyses supported a preference for nose-only swabbing. Nose-only swabbing for LFDs provided sufficient diagnostic accuracy, supporting its use as a viable option in the COVID-19 National Testing Programme. Less invasive swabbing approaches are important to maximize testing accessibility and alongside other behavioral interventions, increase user uptake.

Indexed as

AccessibilityAnterior naresAssisted swabbingCOVID-19 diagnosticsLateral flow devicesMid-turbinateNose and throatSARS-CoV2 diagnosticsSelf-swabbingSensitivity

Identifiers

PMID39806484
PMCPMC11731392

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.