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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease 2022-04, Vol.102 (4), p.115618-115618, Article 115618 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
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 |