↓ Skip to main content

Throat and nasal swabs for molecular detection of respiratory viruses in acute pharyngitis

Overview of attention for article published in Virology Journal, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Throat and nasal swabs for molecular detection of respiratory viruses in acute pharyngitis
Published in
Virology Journal, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12985-015-0408-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohsin Ali, Sangsu Han, Chris J. Gunst, Steve Lim, Kathy Luinstra, Marek Smieja

Abstract

Detection of specific respiratory viruses is important for surveillance programs, where nasopharyngeal or nasal swabs have traditionally been used. Our objective was to determine whether sampling with a throat swab provides incremental benefit-when used in conjunction with a nasal swab-to detect respiratory viruses among patients with acute pharyngitis in the outpatient setting. Among 83 university students with acute pharyngitis, we detected respiratory viruses with molecular assays on two samples collected per student: with a flocked nasal mid-turbinate swab and a rayon throat swab. Forty-eight (58 %) patients had virus-positive samples, with 49 virus positives detected by either swab (one patient had a dual viral co-infection). The most common viruses were rhinovirus, coronavirus, and influenza A virus. Specifically, 29 virus positives were detected by both swabs, 14 exclusively by the nasal swab, and six exclusively by the throat swab. The additional six virus positives detected by the throat swab corresponded to an absolute increase in viral detection of 7.1 % (95 % CI: 1.2-12.9 %); the specific viruses detected were four rhinoviruses and two coronaviruses. The flocked nasal swab samples respiratory viruses well, even among patients whose primary complaint is a sore throat. The rayon throat swab has modest incremental value over and above using the flocked nasal mid-turbinate swab alone, which suggests that while throat swabs alone would not be adequate for respiratory viral surveillance, they may have value as a supplementary test.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 55 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 21%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 11%
Student > Master 6 11%
Other 5 9%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 18%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 13 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 April 2021.
All research outputs
#7,335,114
of 24,356,663 outputs
Outputs from Virology Journal
#802
of 3,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,304
of 289,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Virology Journal
#14
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,356,663 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,237 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 289,798 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.