ArticleAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE2025
Efficacy of swish and gargle and other collection methods with the use of Abbott ID NOW in COVID-19 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To evaluate the efficacy of the Abbott ID NOW system in detecting COVID-19 using different specimen collection methods, emphasizing diagnostic accuracy and patient comfort. Methods: Three cohorts were analyzed, including two using the nasopharyngeal (NP) swab technique and one utilizing the swish-and-gargle (SG) method. Positive percent agreement (PPA), negative percent agreement (NPA), and cycle threshold (Ct) values were assessed to determine the system's performance. Results: The PPA for the NP swab cohorts averaged around 70%, while the SG cohort exhibited a higher PPA of 80%. All cohorts maintained high NPAs, close to 100%. The SG method significantly reduced false negatives, especially at lower Ct values, indicative of elevated levels of viral RNA. Additionally, the NP swab method, often uncomfortable, posed challenges in repeated testing scenarios, particularly among healthcare workers. Conclusion: While the Abbott ID NOW system demonstrates reliable COVID-19 detection, the SG method emerges as a superior collection technique to NP swabs, offering enhanced diagnostic accuracy and improved comfort for test takers. This study underscores the importance of selecting appropriate collection methods to ensure accurate and efficient COVID-19 testing.
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.