COVID-19 diagnosis by RT-qPCR in alternative specimens.
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
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.
Gonçalves Cássia Cristina Alves, Barroso Shana Priscila Coutinho, Herlinger Alice Laschuk, Galliez Rafael de Mello, de Almeida Tailah Bernardo, Boullosa Lidia Theodoro, Nascimento Erica Ramos Dos Santos, de Almeida Jessica M, da Costa Raissa Mirella Dos Santos Cunha, da Paixão Tatiana Monteiro, Couceiro José Nelson Dos Santos Silva, Frauches Thiago Silva, de Souza Wilson Rodrigues, Costa Andréa Ribeiro, Faffe Débora Souza, Leitão Isabela de Carvalho, da Silva Bianca Ortiz, de Lira Guilherme Sant'Anna, de Almeida Isabela Labarba Carvalho, Ferreira Orlando da Costa, UFRJ-Covid19 Workgroup, Castiñeiras Terezinha Marta Pereira Pinto, Mariani Diana, Tanuri Amilcar
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this work was to compare saliva and gingival fluid swabs to NP swabs as specimens for RT-qPCR-based SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.
METHODS: We compared gingival fluid swabs (n = 158) and saliva (n = 207) to the rayon-tipped NP swabs obtained from mild-symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects as specimens for RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2 detection.
FINDINGS: When compared to NP swabs, gingival fluid swabs had a concordance rate of 15.4% among positive samples, zero among inconclusive, and 100% among negative ones. For saliva samples, the concordance rate was 67.6% among positive samples, 42.9% among inconclusive, and 96.8% among negative ones. However, the concordance rate between saliva and NP swabs was higher (96.9%) within samples with lower cycle threshold (Ct) values (Ct > 10 ≤ 25).
MAIN CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggests that whereas gingival fluid swabs are not substitutes for NP swabs, saliva might be considered whenever NP swabs are not available or recommended.