文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2025

一种用于基于PCR的SARS-CoV-2检测的远程医疗指导下的自我采样方法:比较研究

A Telemedicine-Guided Self-Collection Approach for PCR-Based SARS-CoV-2 Testing: Comparative Study.

作者信息

Würstle Silvia, Erber Johanna, Hanselmann Michael, Hoffmann Dieter, Werfel Stanislas, Hering Svenja, Weidlich Simon, Schneider Jochen, Franke Ralf, Maier Michael, Henkel Andreas G, Schmid Roland M, Protzer Ulrike, Laxy Michael, Spinner Christoph D

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine II, School of Medicine, University Hospital rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Department for Sport and Health Sciences, Professorship of Public Health and Prevention, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

出版信息

JMIR Form Res. 2022 Jan 4;6(1):e32564. doi: 10.2196/32564.


DOI:10.2196/32564
PMID:34803022
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8729873/
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Large-scale, polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based SARS-CoV-2 testing is expensive, resource intensive, and time consuming. A self-collection approach is a probable alternative; however, its feasibility, cost, and ability to prevent infections need to be evaluated. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare an innovative self-collection approach with a regular SARS-CoV-2 testing strategy in a large European industrial manufacturing site. METHODS: The feasibility of a telemedicine-guided PCR-based self-collection approach was assessed for 150 employees (intervention group) and compared with a regular SARS-CoV-2 testing approach used for 143 employees (control group). Acceptance, ergonomics, and efficacy were evaluated using a software application. A simulation model was implemented to evaluate the effectiveness. An interactive R shiny app was created to enable customized simulations. RESULTS: The test results were successfully communicated to and interpreted without uncertainty by 76% (114/150) and 76.9% (110/143) of the participants in the intervention and control groups, respectively (P=.96). The ratings for acceptability, ergonomics, and efficacy among intervention group participants were noninferior when compared to those among control group participants (acceptability: 71.6% vs 37.6%; ergonomics: 88.1% vs 74.5%; efficacy: 86.4% vs 77.5%). The self-collection approach was found to be less time consuming (23 min vs 38 min; P<.001). The simulation model indicated that both testing approaches reduce the risk of infection, and the self-collection approach tends to be slightly less effective owing to its lower sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: The self-collection approach for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was found to be technically feasible and well rated in terms of acceptance, ergonomics, and efficacy. The simulation model facilitates the evaluation of test effectiveness; nonetheless, considering context specificity, appropriate adaptation by companies is required.

摘要

背景:基于聚合酶链反应(PCR)的大规模新冠病毒检测成本高昂、资源密集且耗时。自我采样方法可能是一种替代方案;然而,其可行性、成本以及预防感染的能力需要评估。 目的:本研究旨在比较一种创新的自我采样方法与欧洲一家大型工业制造企业中常规的新冠病毒检测策略。 方法:对150名员工(干预组)评估了基于远程医疗指导的PCR自我采样方法的可行性,并与用于143名员工的常规新冠病毒检测方法(对照组)进行比较。使用软件应用程序评估接受度、人体工程学和有效性。实施了一个模拟模型来评估有效性。创建了一个交互式R闪亮应用程序以实现定制模拟。 结果:干预组和对照组分别有76%(114/150)和76.9%(110/143)的参与者成功接收并毫无疑问地理解了检测结果(P = 0.96)。干预组参与者在可接受性、人体工程学和有效性方面的评分与对照组参与者相比并不逊色(可接受性:71.6%对37.6%;人体工程学:88.1%对74.5%;有效性:86.4%对77.5%)。发现自我采样方法耗时更少(23分钟对38分钟;P < 0.001)。模拟模型表明,两种检测方法都能降低感染风险,且自我采样方法由于敏感性较低,其有效性往往略低。 结论:发现用于新冠病毒诊断的自我采样方法在技术上可行,在接受度、人体工程学和有效性方面评分良好。模拟模型有助于评估检测有效性;尽管如此,考虑到具体情况,公司需要进行适当调整。

相似文献

[1]
A Telemedicine-Guided Self-Collection Approach for PCR-Based SARS-CoV-2 Testing: Comparative Study.

JMIR Form Res. 2022-1-4

[2]
At-home self-collection of saliva, oropharyngeal swabs and dried blood spots for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis and serology: Post-collection acceptability of specimen collection process and patient confidence in specimens.

PLoS One. 2020-8-5

[3]
Willingness to Use Home Collection Methods to Provide Specimens for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 Research: Survey Study.

J Med Internet Res. 2020-9-3

[4]
Self-Sampling for SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostic Testing by Using Nasal and Saliva Specimens: Protocol for Usability and Clinical Evaluation.

JMIR Res Protoc. 2021-5-28

[5]
Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-9-30

[6]
Self-collection and pooling of samples as resources-saving strategies for RT-PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 surveillance, the example of travelers in French Polynesia.

PLoS One. 2021

[7]
Feasibility of SARS-CoV-2 Surveillance Testing Among Children and Childcare Workers at German Day Care Centers: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

JAMA Netw Open. 2022-1-4

[8]
Detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 on Self-Collected Saliva or Anterior Nasal Specimens Compared With Healthcare Personnel-Collected Nasopharyngeal Specimens.

Clin Infect Dis. 2021-7-15

[9]
Rapid Serological Assays and SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2: Comparative Study.

J Med Internet Res. 2020-10-30

[10]
Diagnostic Performance of Self-Collected Saliva Versus Nasopharyngeal Swab for the Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in the Clinical Setting.

Microbiol Spectr. 2021-12-22

引用本文的文献

[1]
Implementation and User Satisfaction of a Comprehensive Telemedicine Approach for SARS-CoV-2 Self-Sampling: Monocentric, Prospective, Interventional, Open-Label, Controlled, Two-Arm Feasibility Study.

JMIR Form Res. 2024-12-11

本文引用的文献

[1]
Presymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a secondary analysis using published data.

BMJ Open. 2021-6-28

[2]
Self-sampling versus health care professional-guided swab collection for SARS-CoV-2 testing.

Infection. 2021-10

[3]
Buyer beware: inflated claims of sensitivity for rapid COVID-19 tests.

Lancet. 2021-1-2

[4]
The accuracy of healthcare worker versus self collected (2-in-1) Oropharyngeal and Bilateral Mid-Turbinate (OPMT) swabs and saliva samples for SARS-CoV-2.

PLoS One. 2020-12-16

[5]
Combined Self-Collected Anterior Nasal and Oropharyngeal Specimens versus Provider-Collected Nasopharyngeal Swabs for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2.

J Clin Microbiol. 2020-12-17

[6]
Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: A living systematic review and meta-analysis.

PLoS Med. 2020-9-22

[7]
Duration of infectiousness and correlation with RT-PCR cycle threshold values in cases of COVID-19, England, January to May 2020.

Euro Surveill. 2020-8

[8]
Comparison of Unsupervised Home Self-collected Midnasal Swabs With Clinician-Collected Nasopharyngeal Swabs for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

JAMA Netw Open. 2020-7-1

[9]
Swabs Collected by Patients or Health Care Workers for SARS-CoV-2 Testing.

N Engl J Med. 2020-7-30

[10]
Self-collection: An appropriate alternative during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

J Clin Virol. 2020-5-4

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索