Clinical evaluation of nasopharyngeal, midturbinate nasal and oropharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2

In the setting of supply chain shortages of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs, we sought to compare the ability of nasopharyngeal, midturbinate nasal, and oropharyngeal swabs (NPS, MTS, and OPS) to detect SARS-CoV-2. Community and hospitalized participants post-COVID-19 diagnosis were swabbed and tested for...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease 2022-04, Vol.102 (4), p.115618-115618, Article 115618
Hauptverfasser: Berenger, Byron M., Fonseca, Kevin, Schneider, Angela R., Hu, Jia, Zelyas, Nathan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 115618
container_issue 4
container_start_page 115618
container_title Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease
container_volume 102
creator Berenger, Byron M.
Fonseca, Kevin
Schneider, Angela R.
Hu, Jia
Zelyas, Nathan
description In the setting of supply chain shortages of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs, we sought to compare the ability of nasopharyngeal, midturbinate nasal, and oropharyngeal swabs (NPS, MTS, and OPS) to detect SARS-CoV-2. Community and hospitalized participants post-COVID-19 diagnosis were swabbed and tested for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR. Thirty-six participants had all 3 swabs collected. Using detection at any site as the standard, the percent positive agreements were 90% (95% CI 74.4−96.5), 80% (70.3−94.7) and 87% (62.7−90.5) for NPS, MTS, and OPS, respectively. Subsequently, 43 participants had OPS and NPS collected. Thirty-nine were positive with a percent positive agreement of 82.1% (95% CI 67.3−91.0) for OPS and 87.2% (73.3−94.4) for NPS. Combining all 79 patients tested, 67 were positive at either site with a positive agreement was 86.5% (76.4−92.7) for OPS and 91.1% (81.8−95.8) for NPS. OPS are an acceptable alternative to NPS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2021.115618
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8675123</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0732889321003096</els_id><sourcerecordid>2618906741</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4028-bc6df77945ac50e57fd54171a6d312f002ba913cb3997438072f7e254fa387643</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkUtvEzEUhS0EoqHwF5DFigUT_BiPxyyQqvCqVKkSBbaWx76TOJqxU3smiH-Po7RVuuvqLu53zr06B6F3lCwpoc3H7dJ5sx69TbHzcckIo0tKRUPbZ2hBW6kqQiR5jhZEcla1reJn6FXOW0IoUzV5ic64KIQSaoFuV4MP3poBw94Ms5l8DDj2OJgcdxuT_oU1mOEDHr2b5tT5YCY4LIvABIdjOqFw_mu6jPuY8LQB7GACe-93c_HzplrFPxV7jV70Zsjw5m6eo9_fvv5a_aiurr9fri6uKlsT1ladbVwvpaqFsYKAkL0TNZXUNI5T1hPCOqMotx1XSta8JZL1Epioe8Nb2dT8HH0--u7mbgRnIUzJDHqX_Fge1tF4_XgT_Eav4163jRSU8WLw_s4gxdsZ8qRHny0MgwkQ56xZCVyRRta0oJ-OaKkk5wT9wxlK9KEzvdWnnelDZ_rYWRG_PX30QXpfUgG-HAEoce09JJ2th2DB-VQS1i76p9z5Dya_sG0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2618906741</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Clinical evaluation of nasopharyngeal, midturbinate nasal and oropharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Berenger, Byron M. ; Fonseca, Kevin ; Schneider, Angela R. ; Hu, Jia ; Zelyas, Nathan</creator><creatorcontrib>Berenger, Byron M. ; Fonseca, Kevin ; Schneider, Angela R. ; Hu, Jia ; Zelyas, Nathan</creatorcontrib><description>In the setting of supply chain shortages of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs, we sought to compare the ability of nasopharyngeal, midturbinate nasal, and oropharyngeal swabs (NPS, MTS, and OPS) to detect SARS-CoV-2. Community and hospitalized participants post-COVID-19 diagnosis were swabbed and tested for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR. Thirty-six participants had all 3 swabs collected. Using detection at any site as the standard, the percent positive agreements were 90% (95% CI 74.4−96.5), 80% (70.3−94.7) and 87% (62.7−90.5) for NPS, MTS, and OPS, respectively. Subsequently, 43 participants had OPS and NPS collected. Thirty-nine were positive with a percent positive agreement of 82.1% (95% CI 67.3−91.0) for OPS and 87.2% (73.3−94.4) for NPS. Combining all 79 patients tested, 67 were positive at either site with a positive agreement was 86.5% (76.4−92.7) for OPS and 91.1% (81.8−95.8) for NPS. OPS are an acceptable alternative to NPS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0732-8893</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-0070</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2021.115618</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35007959</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>COVID-19 ; COVID-19 - diagnosis ; COVID-19 Testing ; Diagnostic testing ; Humans ; Molecular diagnostic techniques ; Nasopharynx ; Saliva ; SARS-CoV-2 ; Specimen Handling ; Swab</subject><ispartof>Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2022-04, Vol.102 (4), p.115618-115618, Article 115618</ispartof><rights>2021</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2021 Published by Elsevier Inc. 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4028-bc6df77945ac50e57fd54171a6d312f002ba913cb3997438072f7e254fa387643</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4028-bc6df77945ac50e57fd54171a6d312f002ba913cb3997438072f7e254fa387643</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9062-6346</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2021.115618$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,3548,27923,27924,45994</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35007959$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Berenger, Byron M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fonseca, Kevin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schneider, Angela R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hu, Jia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zelyas, Nathan</creatorcontrib><title>Clinical evaluation of nasopharyngeal, midturbinate nasal and oropharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2</title><title>Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease</title><addtitle>Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis</addtitle><description>In the setting of supply chain shortages of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs, we sought to compare the ability of nasopharyngeal, midturbinate nasal, and oropharyngeal swabs (NPS, MTS, and OPS) to detect SARS-CoV-2. Community and hospitalized participants post-COVID-19 diagnosis were swabbed and tested for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR. Thirty-six participants had all 3 swabs collected. Using detection at any site as the standard, the percent positive agreements were 90% (95% CI 74.4−96.5), 80% (70.3−94.7) and 87% (62.7−90.5) for NPS, MTS, and OPS, respectively. Subsequently, 43 participants had OPS and NPS collected. Thirty-nine were positive with a percent positive agreement of 82.1% (95% CI 67.3−91.0) for OPS and 87.2% (73.3−94.4) for NPS. Combining all 79 patients tested, 67 were positive at either site with a positive agreement was 86.5% (76.4−92.7) for OPS and 91.1% (81.8−95.8) for NPS. OPS are an acceptable alternative to NPS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections.</description><subject>COVID-19</subject><subject>COVID-19 - diagnosis</subject><subject>COVID-19 Testing</subject><subject>Diagnostic testing</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Molecular diagnostic techniques</subject><subject>Nasopharynx</subject><subject>Saliva</subject><subject>SARS-CoV-2</subject><subject>Specimen Handling</subject><subject>Swab</subject><issn>0732-8893</issn><issn>1879-0070</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkUtvEzEUhS0EoqHwF5DFigUT_BiPxyyQqvCqVKkSBbaWx76TOJqxU3smiH-Po7RVuuvqLu53zr06B6F3lCwpoc3H7dJ5sx69TbHzcckIo0tKRUPbZ2hBW6kqQiR5jhZEcla1reJn6FXOW0IoUzV5ic64KIQSaoFuV4MP3poBw94Ms5l8DDj2OJgcdxuT_oU1mOEDHr2b5tT5YCY4LIvABIdjOqFw_mu6jPuY8LQB7GACe-93c_HzplrFPxV7jV70Zsjw5m6eo9_fvv5a_aiurr9fri6uKlsT1ladbVwvpaqFsYKAkL0TNZXUNI5T1hPCOqMotx1XSta8JZL1Epioe8Nb2dT8HH0--u7mbgRnIUzJDHqX_Fge1tF4_XgT_Eav4163jRSU8WLw_s4gxdsZ8qRHny0MgwkQ56xZCVyRRta0oJ-OaKkk5wT9wxlK9KEzvdWnnelDZ_rYWRG_PX30QXpfUgG-HAEoce09JJ2th2DB-VQS1i76p9z5Dya_sG0</recordid><startdate>20220401</startdate><enddate>20220401</enddate><creator>Berenger, Byron M.</creator><creator>Fonseca, Kevin</creator><creator>Schneider, Angela R.</creator><creator>Hu, Jia</creator><creator>Zelyas, Nathan</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Published by Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9062-6346</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220401</creationdate><title>Clinical evaluation of nasopharyngeal, midturbinate nasal and oropharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2</title><author>Berenger, Byron M. ; Fonseca, Kevin ; Schneider, Angela R. ; Hu, Jia ; Zelyas, Nathan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4028-bc6df77945ac50e57fd54171a6d312f002ba913cb3997438072f7e254fa387643</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>COVID-19</topic><topic>COVID-19 - diagnosis</topic><topic>COVID-19 Testing</topic><topic>Diagnostic testing</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Molecular diagnostic techniques</topic><topic>Nasopharynx</topic><topic>Saliva</topic><topic>SARS-CoV-2</topic><topic>Specimen Handling</topic><topic>Swab</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Berenger, Byron M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fonseca, Kevin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schneider, Angela R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hu, Jia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zelyas, Nathan</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Berenger, Byron M.</au><au>Fonseca, Kevin</au><au>Schneider, Angela R.</au><au>Hu, Jia</au><au>Zelyas, Nathan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Clinical evaluation of nasopharyngeal, midturbinate nasal and oropharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2</atitle><jtitle>Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease</jtitle><addtitle>Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis</addtitle><date>2022-04-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>102</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>115618</spage><epage>115618</epage><pages>115618-115618</pages><artnum>115618</artnum><issn>0732-8893</issn><eissn>1879-0070</eissn><abstract>In the setting of supply chain shortages of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs, we sought to compare the ability of nasopharyngeal, midturbinate nasal, and oropharyngeal swabs (NPS, MTS, and OPS) to detect SARS-CoV-2. Community and hospitalized participants post-COVID-19 diagnosis were swabbed and tested for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR. Thirty-six participants had all 3 swabs collected. Using detection at any site as the standard, the percent positive agreements were 90% (95% CI 74.4−96.5), 80% (70.3−94.7) and 87% (62.7−90.5) for NPS, MTS, and OPS, respectively. Subsequently, 43 participants had OPS and NPS collected. Thirty-nine were positive with a percent positive agreement of 82.1% (95% CI 67.3−91.0) for OPS and 87.2% (73.3−94.4) for NPS. Combining all 79 patients tested, 67 were positive at either site with a positive agreement was 86.5% (76.4−92.7) for OPS and 91.1% (81.8−95.8) for NPS. OPS are an acceptable alternative to NPS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>35007959</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2021.115618</doi><tpages>1</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9062-6346</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0732-8893
ispartof Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2022-04, Vol.102 (4), p.115618-115618, Article 115618
issn 0732-8893
1879-0070
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8675123
source MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)
subjects COVID-19
COVID-19 - diagnosis
COVID-19 Testing
Diagnostic testing
Humans
Molecular diagnostic techniques
Nasopharynx
Saliva
SARS-CoV-2
Specimen Handling
Swab
title Clinical evaluation of nasopharyngeal, midturbinate nasal and oropharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T15%3A22%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Clinical%20evaluation%20of%20nasopharyngeal,%20midturbinate%20nasal%20and%20oropharyngeal%20swabs%20for%20the%20detection%20of%20SARS-CoV-2&rft.jtitle=Diagnostic%20microbiology%20and%20infectious%20disease&rft.au=Berenger,%20Byron%20M.&rft.date=2022-04-01&rft.volume=102&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=115618&rft.epage=115618&rft.pages=115618-115618&rft.artnum=115618&rft.issn=0732-8893&rft.eissn=1879-0070&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2021.115618&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2618906741%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2618906741&rft_id=info:pmid/35007959&rft_els_id=S0732889321003096&rfr_iscdi=true