PloS one · 2021
Sampling site for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-An intrapatient four-site comparison from Tampere, Finland.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kerimov Dominik, Tamminen Pekka, Viskari Hanna, Lehtimäki Lauri, Aittoniemi Janne
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis relies on the performance of nasopharyngeal swabs. Alternative sample sites have been assessed but the heterogeneity of the studies have made comparing different sites difficult.
OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to compare the performance of four different sampling sites for SARS-CoV-2 samples with nasopharynx being the benchmark.
STUDY DESIGN: COVID-19 positive patients were recruited prospectively, and samples were collected and analysed for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR from all four anatomical sites in 43 patients, who provided written informed consent.
RESULTS: All anterior nasal and saliva samples were positive, while two oropharyngeal samples were negative. There was no significant difference in the cycle threshold values of nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal samples while saliva and oropharynx had higher cycle threshold values.
CONCLUSIONS: Anterior nasal swab performs as good as nasopharynx swab with saliva also finding all the positives but with higher cycle threshold values. Thus, we can conclude that anterior nasal swabs can be used for SARS-CoV-2 detection instead of nasopharyngeal swabs if the situation would require so.
OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to compare the performance of four different sampling sites for SARS-CoV-2 samples with nasopharynx being the benchmark.
STUDY DESIGN: COVID-19 positive patients were recruited prospectively, and samples were collected and analysed for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR from all four anatomical sites in 43 patients, who provided written informed consent.
RESULTS: All anterior nasal and saliva samples were positive, while two oropharyngeal samples were negative. There was no significant difference in the cycle threshold values of nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal samples while saliva and oropharynx had higher cycle threshold values.
CONCLUSIONS: Anterior nasal swab performs as good as nasopharynx swab with saliva also finding all the positives but with higher cycle threshold values. Thus, we can conclude that anterior nasal swabs can be used for SARS-CoV-2 detection instead of nasopharyngeal swabs if the situation would require so.