ArticlePediatric pulmonology2025
Home Microbiological Sampling in a Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis Population: Pandemic Implementation and Ongoing Use.
Article in Pediatric pulmonology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Home Microbiological Sampling in a Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis Population: Pandemic Implementation and Ongoing Use.Pediatric pulmonology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDuring the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID19) pandemic, restrictions on in-person care threatened to disrupt in-clinic airway sampling for microbiological surveillance, a vital aspect of cystic fibrosis (CF) care. In response, institutions developed home airway sampling strategies to allow continued guidelines-based microbiological surveillance. The validity of this sampling technique and its ongoing use has not been reviewed. Our aim is to characterize the frequency of home versus in-clinic airway sampling at our institution before, during, and after COVID19 and to compare the positivity rates of significant CF pathogens in both sampling methods.
methodsThis single center, retrospective cohort study included children with CF with at least one airway culture between January 1st, 2019, and May 16th, 2023. Culture data were extracted from an electronic microbiological database and individual culture locations (home or clinic) were confirmed manually from patient charts.
resultsTwo thousand six hundred and thirty eight cultures were included from 170 patients (52.4% male, mean age 6.2 years). Of these, 2080 were collected by healthcare providers at BCCH and 558 were collected at home by parents or caregivers. Overall, the positivity rate of all pathogens was higher in home collected samples (rate ratio: 1.46, 95%CI: 1.32-1.61, p < 0.001) than in-clinic collected samples. However, on a species-by-species analysis, only the positivity rate of other gram-negative bacilli had significantly higher positivity in home-collected samples (rate ratio: 1.69, 95%CI: 1.16-2.46, p = 0.01).
conclusionThe similar positivity rates of clinically significant CF pathogens suggest that home sampling is comparable to clinic sampling, though future prospective studies are needed to confirm this hypothesis.
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.