ArticleAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE2025
Validation of oral-nasal specimen collection for influenza and respiratory syncytial virus detection.
Article in Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Respiratory virus testing is routinely performed and ways to obtain specimens aside from a nasopharyngeal swab are needed for pandemic preparedness. The main objective is to validate a self-collected oral-nasal swab for the detection of Influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Design: Diagnostic test validation of a self-collected oral nasal swab as compared to a provider-collected nasopharyngeal swab. Setting: Emergency Department at Michael Garron Hospital. Participants: Consecutive individuals who presented to the Emergency Department with a suspected viral upper respiratory tract infection were included if they self-collected an oral-nasal swab. Individuals testing positive for Influenza or RSV along with randomly selected participants who tested negative were eligible for inclusion. Interventions: All participants had the paired oral-nasal swab tested using a multiplex respiratory virus polymerase chain reaction for the three respiratory pathogens and compared to the nasopharyngeal swab. Results: 48 individuals tested positive for Influenza, severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or RSV along with 80 who tested negative. 110 were symptomatic with the median time from symptom onset to testing of 1 day (interquartile range 2-5 days). Using the clinical nasopharyngeal swab as the reference standard, the sensitivity was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.43-0.95) and specificity was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.93-1.00) for RSV, sensitivity is 0.67 (95% CI, 0.49-0.81) and specificity is 0.96 (95% CI, 0.89-0.99) for Influenza. Conclusions: Multiplex testing with a self-collected oral-nasal swab for Influenza and RSV is not an acceptable substitute for a healthcare provider collected nasopharyngeal swab primarily due to suboptimal Influenza test characteristics.
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.