Accuracy of point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 detection using buccal swabs in pediatric emergency departments
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT To optimize the identification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-infected children, specimen collection and testing method are crucial considerations. Ideally, specimen collection is easy and causes minimal discomfort, and the laboratory approach is simple, accurate, and rapid. In this prospective cohort study we evaluated the accuracy of a point-of care nucleic acid device using caregiver/patient self-collected buccal swabs. Participants were recruited in 14 Canadian tertiary care pediatric emergency departments. Children <18 years of age deemed to require SARS-CoV-2 testing were eligible. Caregivers or the patient-collected buccal swabs which were tested on the ABBOTT ID NOW. The reference standard was nasopharyngeal swab specimens collected by a healthcare provider tested via laboratory reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR). We enrolled 2,640 study participants and 14.4% (381/2,640) were SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive. Eight percent (223/2,640) and 85.0% (2,244/2,640) were concordant test-positive and concordant test-negative, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of the investigational approach were 58.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 53.4, 63.5] and 99.3% (95% CI: 98.9, 99.6), respectively. Cycle threshold values were lower among concordant [median 17 (15, 21)] relative to discordant [median 30 (22, 35)] swabs ( P < 0.001). Sensitivity was greatest among children <4 years of age, when caregivers performed the swabs, among unvaccinated children, and those with shorter symptom duration. Across multiple pain measures, less pain was associated with buccal swab testing. Although accuracy of the buccal swab point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 test was good and negative agreement was excellent, sensitivity was only 58.5%. Concordance was greater among those with higher viral loads, and the approach involving buccal swabs was less painful. IMPORTANCE To optimize the identification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-infected children, specimen collection and testing method are crucial considerations. Ideally, specimen collection is easy and causes minimal discomfort, and laboratory approach is simple, accurate, and rapid. We evaluated the accuracy and pain associated with buccal swab specimen collection by caregivers or children themselves who were tested using a point-of-care isothermal nucleic acid amplification SARS-CoV-2 test. This novel approach was compared to nasopharyngeal swab specimens tested using laboratory-based PCR tests. While negative agreement was excellent, positive percent agreement was less than 60%. Concordance was greater among those with higher viral loads, and thus, sensitivity is excellent when transmissibility is more likely to occur. Importantly, the approach involving buccal swabs was significantly less painful, and thus, children and their caregivers are more likely to agree to testing using such an approach. CLINICAL TRIALS Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT05040763 ).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».