ArticleMethodsX2026
Evaluation of the diagnostic capacities of saliva sampling from pediatric patients: Protocol for a randomized intra-individual study.
Article in MethodsX, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07350291 (Evaluation of the Diagnostic Capabilities of Saliva Samples From Pediatric Patients, Promoting Active Involvement of the Individuals Concerned and Their Families), which is not on this 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.
Evaluation of the Diagnostic Capabilities of Saliva Samples From Pediatric Patients, Promoting Active Involvement of the Individuals Concerned and Their Families: Protocol for a Randomized Intra-individual Study.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute bronchiolitis is a common respiratory infection that affects approximately 30% of children under two years of age in France. While most cases are mild and treated on an outpatient basis, around 0.5% of children require hospitalization for monitoring and/or treatment. This condition, which is linked to various respiratory pathogens, accounts for a significant proportion of winter activity in hospital pediatric departments. Diagnosis for young children under two years of age is currently based on nasopharyngeal aspiration (NPA), performed by nurses on medical prescription. Although considered the gold standard, this technique is invasive and potentially traumatic for children. It often requires several caregivers and sometimes causes tension with families. The experience of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has highlighted the value of saliva sampling, with good diagnostic concordance with reference methods, as well as better tolerance and acceptability than nasopharyngeal swabbing in children over 2 years of age. In this context, our study aims to compare NPA and saliva sampling in the diagnosis of respiratory distress in children between 28 days and 2 years of age, to evaluate the concordance of results, and to compare tolerance and acceptability. Clinical trial number: NCT07350291.
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.