ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2026
Diagnostic accuracy of self-collected anterior nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing.
Article in Microbiology spectrum, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This prospective sub-study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the self-collected anterior nasal swab (ANS; Rhinoswab) against that of healthcare professional (HCP)-collected combined throat and nasal swab (CTN). Eligibility criteria for the study included: >5 years of age, a positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rapid antigen or PCR <72 h prior, and one other participating household member. Samples were tested via reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and included in the analysis where RS and CTN swab were collected on the same day. Indeterminate results were excluded from the analysis. Sensitivity and specificity were used to assess the accuracy of results from self-collected RS. Analysis of the average cycle threshold (Ct) was performed in GraphPad Prism using a paired IMPORTANCE: In this study, we compared the PCR results of self-collected anterior nasal swabs against healthcare professional-collected combined throat and nasal swabs. The sensitivity and specificity of the anterior nasal swab were considered acceptable when compared to World Health Organization recommendations. The sensitivity of the Rhinoswab ANS was higher at the beginning of the trial when compared with the final day of the trial, regardless of the number of prongs tested via PCR. The self-collected Rhinoswab is a valid tool for community screening of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in vulnerable populations.
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.