A novel anterior nasal swab to detect respiratory viruses: a prospective study of diagnostic accuracy.

Detection of respiratory viruses requires testing of the upper respiratory tract to obtain specimens for analysis. However, nasal and throat swabs can cause discomfort and procedural anxiety in children. Respiratory sampling methods which are accurate and less invasive are needed. We aim to determine the positive and negative percentage agreement of a novel anterior nasal swab (ANS) compared with the combined throat and anterior nasal swab (CTN), the reference standard, for detection of respiratory viruses. Children 5 - 18 years of age presenting to a tertiary paediatric hospital with respiratory symptoms were tested with both swabs in randomised order. Respiratory samples were tested on a multiplex RT-PCR panel. Viral detections, RT-PCR cycle-threshold values and child/parent/clinician experience of the swab were recorded. There were 157 viral detections from 249 participant CTN swabs. In comparison with the CTN, the overall positive and negative percentage agreement of ANS for detection of respiratory viruses was 96.2% (95% CI, 91.8-98.3%) and 99.8% (95% CI, 99.6-99.9%), respectively. The ANS was "extremely comfortable", or only a "little uncomfortable" for 90% of children compared with 48% for CTN. 202 children (84%) rated the ANS as the preferred swab, and 208 (87%) indicated they would prefer ANS for future testing. The ANS required additional laboratory handling processes compared to the CTN. The ANS has high positive percentage agreement and is comparable to the current standard of care. The high acceptability from the less invasive ANS provides a more comfortable method for respiratory virus testing in children.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05043623.

Stick with the nose Saliva rapid antigen testing is not a viable method for testing children under 5 years old.

AIM: Respiratory testing with rapid antigen tests (RATs) in children under 5 years of age may be uncomfortable and presents specific challenges to testing due to compliance and procedural distress. The aim of this study was to investigate sensitivity and feasibility of self-collected nasal and saliva RAT tests compared with a combined nose and throat (CTN) swab PCR in children under 5. METHODS: Children aged between 1 month and 5 years, with confirmed COVID-19 or who were a household contact within 7 days were included. A saliva RAT, nasal RAT and CTN swab were collected by the parent. SARS-CoV-2 cycle threshold (Ct) values for CTN tested by PCR were compared with saliva and nasal RAT results. Parent preference for method of sample was recorded. RESULTS: Forty-one children were recruited with median age of 1.5 (interquartile range 0.7-4.0) years. Only 22/41 (54%) of parents were able to successfully collect a saliva RAT from their child. Sensitivity of the nasal RAT and saliva RAT was 0.889 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.739-0.969) and 0.158 (95% CI 0.034-0.396), respectively. Upper limit of nasal RAT detection by CTN Ct value was higher than saliva (36.05 vs. 27.29). While saliva RAT was rated most comfortable, nasal RAT was rated the preferred specimen by parents for future testing, due to saliva collection difficulties and time taken. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid antigen testing with nasal RAT is a more feasible and sensitive method for SARS-CoV-2 detection in young children compared with saliva RAT.

Statistical analyses of ordinal outcomes in randomised controlled trials: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aim to estimate the causal effect of one or more interventions relative to a control. One type of outcome that can be of interest in an RCT is an ordinal outcome, which is useful to answer clinical questions regarding complex and evolving patient states. The target parameter of interest for an ordinal outcome depends on the research question and the assumptions the analyst is willing to make. This review aimed to provide an overview of how ordinal outcomes have been used and analysed in RCTs. METHODS: The review included RCTs with an ordinal primary or secondary outcome published between 2017 and 2022 in four highly ranked medical journals (the British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, and the Journal of the American Medical Association) identified through PubMed. Details regarding the study setting, design, the target parameter, and statistical methods used to analyse the ordinal outcome were extracted. RESULTS: The search identified 309 studies, of which 144 were eligible for inclusion. The most used target parameter was an odds ratio, reported in 78 (54%) studies. The ordinal outcome was dichotomised for analysis in 47 ( 33 % ) studies, and the most common statistical model used to analyse the ordinal outcome on the full ordinal scale was the proportional odds model (64 [ 44 % ] studies). Notably, 86 (60%) studies did not explicitly check or describe the robustness of the assumptions for the statistical method(s) used. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review indicate that in RCTs that use an ordinal outcome, there is variation in the target parameter and the analytical approaches used, with many dichotomising the ordinal outcome. Few studies provided assurance regarding the appropriateness of the assumptions and methods used to analyse the ordinal outcome. More guidance is needed to improve the transparent reporting of the analysis of ordinal outcomes in future trials.

Statistical analyses of ordinal outcomes in randomised controlled trials: protocol for a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aim to assess the effect of one (or more) unproven health interventions relative to other reference interventions. RCTs sometimes use an ordinal outcome, which is an endpoint that comprises of multiple, monotonically ordered categories that are not necessarily separated by a quantifiable distance. Ordinal outcomes are appealing in clinical settings as specific disease states can represent meaningful categories that may be of clinical importance to researchers. Ordinal outcomes can also retain information and increase statistical power compared to dichotomised outcomes and can allow multiple clinical outcomes to be comprised in a single endpoint. Target parameters for ordinal outcomes in RCTs may vary depending on the nature of the research question, the modelling assumptions and the expertise of the data analyst. The aim of this scoping review is to systematically describe the use of ordinal outcomes in contemporary RCTs. Specifically, we aim to: [Formula: see text] Identify which target parameters are of interest in trials that use an ordinal outcome, and whether these parameters are explicitly defined. [Formula: see text] Describe how ordinal outcomes are analysed in RCTs to estimate a treatment effect. [Formula: see text] Describe whether RCTs that use an ordinal outcome adequately report key methodological aspects specific to the analysis of the ordinal outcome. Results from this review will outline the current state of practice of the use of ordinal outcomes in RCTs. Ways to improve the analysis and reporting of ordinal outcomes in RCTs will be discussed. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will review RCTs that are published in the top four medical journals (British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the Journal of the American Medical Association) between 1 January 2012 and 31 July 2022 that use an ordinal outcome as either a primary or a secondary outcome. The review will identify articles through a PubMed-specific search strategy. Our review will adhere to guidelines for scoping reviews as described in the PRISMA-ScR checklist. The study characteristics and details of the study design and analysis, including the target parameter(s) and statistical methods used to analyse the ordinal outcome, will be extracted from eligible studies. The screening, review and data extraction will be conducted using Covidence, a web-based tool for managing systematic reviews. The data will be summarised using descriptive statistics.