Roser Madisen Sadie, Young Megan K, Williams Dustylee, Subedi Shradha, Barnekow Donna, Pyke Alyssa, Tickner Jacob, Hewitson Glen, Thomas Michael, Khandaker Gulam, Schlebusch Sanmarie, Smoll Nicolas Roydon
Sunshine Coast Public Health Unit, Maroochydore, Queensland, Australia.
Metro North Public Health Unit, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
PLoS One. 2025 Aug 22;20(8):e0329643. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0329643. eCollection 2025.
Obtaining a stool specimen for diagnostic testing of enteric conditions (e.g., gastroenteritis) can be a challenging and unpleasant experience. A person is required to obtain a sample pot from a healthcare location, return home and wait until they have a bowel motion, and then deal with the challenges of returning the sample to the clinic or pathology centre. This trial aims to identify whether the simpler approach of obtaining a rectal swab is effective for diagnosing enteric conditions. Recruitment will take place in a variety of settings, including suspected norovirus clusters, Hepatitis A clusters, in both hospital, and community settings. We will compare paired stool and rectal swab sample polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing to determine whether rectal swabs are a reliable proxy for faecal sampling. Persons who would normally be provided with a faecal specimen container, will also be provided with a rectal swab for self-collection or clinician-collection (within 24 hours of the bulk faeces collection). We will assess the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value using standard confusion matrix. The gold standard reference will be considered the bulk faeces PCR tests. We hypothesise that rectal swab PCR testing will be equally as effective as bulk faeces PCR testing. If successful, rectal swab PCR testing could be implemented as routine practice with several key benefits. Firstly, it would improve the patient experience by conveniently enabling stool collection at the point of care, which is rarely possible currently. Secondly, it would reduce healthcare costs, and streamline collection processes by eliminating the need for persons to return to a clinic to deliver specimen. Thirdly, the ease of testing will likely increase testing rates and compliance, leading to better diagnoses and more accurate clinical care. The protocol described has the potential to revolutionise daily clinical practice. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12624000095561.
获取用于肠道疾病(如肠胃炎)诊断检测的粪便样本可能是一项具有挑战性且令人不适的经历。患者需要从医疗机构获取一个样本罐,回家后等待排便,然后再应对将样本送回诊所或病理中心的种种困难。本试验旨在确定获取直肠拭子这种更简便的方法对诊断肠道疾病是否有效。招募工作将在多种场所进行,包括疑似诺如病毒聚集性病例、甲型肝炎聚集性病例,涉及医院和社区环境。我们将比较配对的粪便和直肠拭子样本聚合酶链反应(PCR)检测结果,以确定直肠拭子是否可作为粪便采样的可靠替代方法。通常会被提供粪便标本容器的人员,也将获得一个直肠拭子用于自行采集或由临床医生采集(在采集大量粪便后的24小时内)。我们将使用标准混淆矩阵评估敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值。金标准参考将被视为大量粪便的PCR检测。我们假设直肠拭子PCR检测与大量粪便PCR检测同样有效。如果成功,直肠拭子PCR检测可作为常规做法实施,带来几个关键益处。首先,它将通过在护理点方便地进行粪便采集来改善患者体验,而目前这很少能做到。其次,它将降低医疗成本,并通过消除患者返回诊所送检标本的需求来简化采集流程。第三,检测的简便性可能会提高检测率和依从性,从而实现更好的诊断和更准确的临床护理。所描述的方案有可能彻底改变日常临床实践。试验注册:澳大利亚新西兰临床试验注册中心(ANZCTR):ACTRN12624000095561。