Comparison of swabs versus suction traps for endoscopically guided sinus cultures.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knowledge of the causative organism(s) in bacterial rhinosinusitis has become the cornerstone of adequate medical and surgical management. Little uniformity and data exist for the best method of obtaining sinus cultures. Most otolaryngologists tend to use the nasal swab for obtaining transnasal middle meatal cultures. A prospective study was carried out to compare the effectiveness of standard nasal swabs versus suction traps in obtaining bacterial isolates under endoscopic guidance. METHODS: Fifty-two patients with purulence in the middle meatus or frontal recess were included in the study. All patients were cultured using nasal wire swabs. Twenty-five of these patients also had the purulence suctioned into a Xomed Sinus Secretion Collector (XSSC) (Xomed Surgical Products, Jacksonville, FL), and 27 patients had the purulence suctioned into a standard Leukens trap (Busse Hospital Disposables, Hauppauge, NY). All specimens were sent to the hospital microbiology laboratory within 1 hour of capture. RESULTS: The average number of bacteria cultured per patient was 1.21 for the swab, 1.37 for the XSSC trap, and 1.08 for the Leukens trap. The agreement between bacteria captured from the wire swab and suction trap was 76.9%, with significant agreement being observed by all isolates with the exception of coagulase-negative Staphylococcus and the other gram-positive bacteria group consisting of Streptococcus viridans, beta-hemolytic streptococcus, and alpha-hemolytic streptococcus. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the wire swab appears to be as efficacious at obtaining endoscopically guided cultures as the Xomed and Leukens suction devices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".