Exact(2)
A recent pilot study has shown high degree of agreement between self-samples and investigator samples (93% agreement, κ 0.85 for nasal swabs and 83% agreement, κ 0.60 for throat swabs).
An investigator samples only cases with this design and compares each patient's exposure during a short time period just before a case event (hazard period) with the participant's exposure at other times (reference periods) without leading to case event.
Similar(58)
Before or after these two self-samples, the investigator sampled the nares and pharynx using the same technique as described above.
This ensured that the collaborating principal investigator (sample custodian) would be the only party able to link data back to the research participants' identity.
In both sampling sites self-samples even detected more S. aureus than investigator-samples.
Lastly, three investigators were involved in taking the investigator-samples, which might lead to slightly different sampling techniques.
Thirty percent (31/105) of nasal investigator-samples were S. aureus positive, compared to 34% (36/105) of self-samples.
In both sampling sites self-samples even dectected more S. aureus than investigator-samples. B. Pharyngeal samples.
Furthermore, when looking at the discordant pairs, nasal self-samples tend to yield more S. aureus compared to investigator-samples.
Gold standards were created combining self-samples and investigator-samples per sampling site; if either one was positive, that person was considered S. aureus positive on that site.
Table 1 shows that nasal self-samples and investigator-samples have an agreement of 93% and a kappa coefficient of 0.85 (CI 0.74-0.96).
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com