Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2 From Throat Swabs Performed With or Without Specimen Collection From the Tonsils: Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Testing for SARS-CoV-2 is essential to provide early COVID-19 treatment for people at high risk of severe illness and to limit the spread of infection in society. Proper upper respiratory specimen collection is the most critical step in the diagnosis of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in public settings, and throat swabs were the preferred specimens used for mass testing in many countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is still a discussion about whether throat swabs have a high enough sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing, as previous studies have reported a large variability in the sensitivity from 52% to 100%. Many previous studies exploring the diagnostic accuracy of throat swabs lack a detailed description of the sampling technique, which makes it difficult to compare the different diagnostic accuracy results. Some studies perform a throat swab by only collecting specimens from the posterior oropharyngeal wall, while others also include a swab of the palatine tonsils for SARS-CoV-2 testing. However, studies suggest that the palatine tonsils could have a tissue tropism for SARS-CoV-2 that may improve the SARS-CoV-2 detection during sampling. This may explain the variation of sensitivity reported, but no clinical studies have yet explored the differences in sensitivity and patient discomfort whether the palatine tonsils are included during the throat swab or not. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to examine the sensitivity and patient discomfort of a throat swab including the palatine tonsils compared to only swabbing the posterior oropharyngeal wall in molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We will conduct a randomized controlled study to compare the molecular detection rate of SARS-CoV-2 by a throat swab performed from the posterior oropharyngeal wall and the palatine tonsils (intervention group) or the posterior oropharyngeal wall only (control group). Participants will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio. All participants fill out a baseline questionnaire upon enrollment in the trial, examining their reason for being tested, symptoms, and previous tonsillectomy. A follow-up questionnaire will be sent to participants to explore the development of symptoms after testing. RESULTS: A total of 2315 participants were enrolled in this study between November 10, 2022, and December 22, 2022. The results from the follow-up questionnaire are expected to be completed at the beginning of 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized clinical trial will provide us with information about whether throat swabs including specimens from the palatine tonsils will improve the diagnostic sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection. These results can, therefore, be used to improve future testing recommendations and provide additional information about tissue tropism for SARS-CoV-2. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05611203; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05611203. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/47446.
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 | 0.033 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.009 |
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".