ArticlePloS one2025
Rectal swabs vs bulk faeces PCR testing for the diagnosis of enteric conditions (RecSwabFaeces): Protocol for a single group diagnostic accuracy comparative trial.
Article in PloS one, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Obtaining a stool specimen for diagnostic testing of enteric conditions (e.g., gastroenteritis) can be a challenging and unpleasant experience. A person is required to obtain a sample pot from a healthcare location, return home and wait until they have a bowel motion, and then deal with the challenges of returning the sample to the clinic or pathology centre. This trial aims to identify whether the simpler approach of obtaining a rectal swab is effective for diagnosing enteric conditions. Recruitment will take place in a variety of settings, including suspected norovirus clusters, Hepatitis A clusters, in both hospital, and community settings. We will compare paired stool and rectal swab sample polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing to determine whether rectal swabs are a reliable proxy for faecal sampling. Persons who would normally be provided with a faecal specimen container, will also be provided with a rectal swab for self-collection or clinician-collection (within 24 hours of the bulk faeces collection). We will assess the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value using standard confusion matrix. The gold standard reference will be considered the bulk faeces PCR tests. We hypothesise that rectal swab PCR testing will be equally as effective as bulk faeces PCR testing. If successful, rectal swab PCR testing could be implemented as routine practice with several key benefits. Firstly, it would improve the patient experience by conveniently enabling stool collection at the point of care, which is rarely possible currently. Secondly, it would reduce healthcare costs, and streamline collection processes by eliminating the need for persons to return to a clinic to deliver specimen. Thirdly, the ease of testing will likely increase testing rates and compliance, leading to better diagnoses and more accurate clinical care. The protocol described has the potential to revolutionise daily clinical practice. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12624000095561.
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.