Accuracy of point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 detection using buccal swabs in pediatric emergency departments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 ).
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".