IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0329643.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rectal swabs vs bulk faeces PCR testing for the diagnosis of enteric conditions (RecSwabFaeces): Protocol for a single group diagnostic accuracy comparative trial

Author

Listed:
  • Madisen Sadie Roser
  • Megan K Young
  • Dustylee Williams
  • Shradha Subedi
  • Donna Barnekow
  • Alyssa Pyke
  • Jacob Tickner
  • Glen Hewitson
  • Michael Thomas
  • Gulam Khandaker
  • Sanmarie Schlebusch
  • Nicolas Roydon Smoll

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Madisen Sadie Roser & Megan K Young & Dustylee Williams & Shradha Subedi & Donna Barnekow & Alyssa Pyke & Jacob Tickner & Glen Hewitson & Michael Thomas & Gulam Khandaker & Sanmarie Schlebusch & Nicol, 2025. "Rectal swabs vs bulk faeces PCR testing for the diagnosis of enteric conditions (RecSwabFaeces): Protocol for a single group diagnostic accuracy comparative trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(8), pages 1-15, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0329643
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0329643
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0329643
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0329643&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0329643?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0329643. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.