We updated the design of this site on December 18, 2017. Learn more.
ClinicalTrials.gov
ClinicalTrials.gov Menu
IMPORTANT: Due to the lapse in government funding, the information on this web site may not be up to date, transactions submitted via the web site may not be processed, and the agency may not be able to respond to inquiries until appropriations are enacted. Updates regarding government operating status and resumption of normal operations can be found at opm.gov.

Comparison Between Two Methods of Throat Swabbing

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01125384
Recruitment Status : Withdrawn (stopped due to protocol mistakes)
First Posted : May 18, 2010
Last Update Posted : August 30, 2011
Sponsor:
Information provided by (Responsible Party):

May 2, 2010
May 18, 2010
August 30, 2011
May 2010
June 2011   (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
sensitivity of "accurate" swabbing versus sensitivity of habitual nurses` swabbing [ Time Frame: 1 year ]
Proportion of positive cultures obtained by "accurate" swabbing will be compared to the proportion of positive cultures obtained by nurses` habitual swabbing (as they do it usually).
Same as current
Complete list of historical versions of study NCT01125384 on ClinicalTrials.gov Archive Site
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
 
Comparison Between Two Methods of Throat Swabbing
Comparison Between Two Methods of Throat Swabbing
Throat swabbing is an important instrument in the diagnosis of strep pharyngitis and sometimes the main argument for antibiotic treatment. There is no firm knowledge about an appropriate method of the swabbing for receiving maximal sensitivity. We hypothesize that accurate swabbing from the pus will increase the sensitivity of the swabbing as compared to free swabbing. In order to check this hypothesis we will compare two swabs from the same throat. One that will be taken by a physician specifically from the pass and the second will be taken by a nurse as she used to do it. An increase of 10% of positive results will be accepted as a significant advantage.
Not Provided
Interventional
Not Provided
Allocation: Non-Randomized
Intervention Model: Single Group Assignment
Masking: Single (Outcomes Assessor)
Primary Purpose: Diagnostic
Pharyngitis
Other: additional swabbing
physician swabs patient`s throat according to standard rules before referral of the patient to throat swabbing by nurse.
  • No Intervention: nurse swabbing
  • Experimental: "accurate" swabbing by a physician
    Intervention: Other: additional swabbing
Not Provided

*   Includes publications given by the data provider as well as publications identified by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number) in Medline.
 
Withdrawn
500
June 2011
June 2011   (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)

Inclusion Criteria:

  • patients with sore throat, classified 2-3 according to Cantor`s criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • patients on antibiotic treatment
  • suspected carriers of streptococcus
Sexes Eligible for Study: All
3 Years to 45 Years   (Child, Adult)
No
Contact information is only displayed when the study is recruiting subjects
Not Provided
Israel
 
NCT01125384
MMC10104-09CTIL
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
Meir Medical Center
Meir Medical Center
Not Provided
Not Provided
Meir Medical Center
August 2011

ICMJE     Data element required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Health Organization ICTRP