Clinical oral investigations · 2021
Self-collected unstimulated saliva, oral swab, and nasopharyngeal swab specimens in the detection of SARS-CoV-2.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
de Paula Eduardo Fernanda, Bezinelli Leticia Mello, de Araujo Carlos Ariel Rodrigues, Moraes João Vitor Vanderlan, Birbrair Alexander, Pinho João Renato Rebello, Hamerschlak Nelson, Al-Hashimi Ibtisam, Heller Debora
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus in the saliva of patients infected with COVID-19 has been confirmed by several studies. However, the use of saliva for the diagnosis of COVID-19 remains limited, because of the discrepancies in the results, which might be due to using different saliva sampling methods. The purpose of this study was to compare the consistency of SARS-CoV-2 detection using two different saliva sampling methods (oral swab and unstimulated saliva) to that of the standard nasopharyngeal swab.
METHODS: Fifty-five subjects were recruited from a pool of COVID-19 inpatient at the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein (HIAE), Brazil. Nasopharyngeal swab, oral swab, and self-collected unstimulated saliva samples were examined for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR.
RESULTS: Self-collected unstimulated saliva demonstrated 87.3% agreement in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus as compared with the nasopharyngeal swab, while oral swab displayed 65.9% agreement when compared to nasopharyngeal swab and 73% when compared to self-collected unstimulated saliva.
CONCLUSION: Unstimulated self-collected saliva samples have shown a higher agreement with the nasopharyngeal swab samples for SARS-COV-2 detection than that obtained when using oral swab samples.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study compares the accuracy of COVID-19 test using different saliva sampling methods to that of nasopharyngeal swab. Given the need for a simple self-applied test that can be performed at home, our findings support the efficacy of self-collected unstimulated saliva samples in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, alleviating the demands for swab supplies, personal protective equipment, and healthcare personnel.
METHODS: Fifty-five subjects were recruited from a pool of COVID-19 inpatient at the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein (HIAE), Brazil. Nasopharyngeal swab, oral swab, and self-collected unstimulated saliva samples were examined for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR.
RESULTS: Self-collected unstimulated saliva demonstrated 87.3% agreement in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus as compared with the nasopharyngeal swab, while oral swab displayed 65.9% agreement when compared to nasopharyngeal swab and 73% when compared to self-collected unstimulated saliva.
CONCLUSION: Unstimulated self-collected saliva samples have shown a higher agreement with the nasopharyngeal swab samples for SARS-COV-2 detection than that obtained when using oral swab samples.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study compares the accuracy of COVID-19 test using different saliva sampling methods to that of nasopharyngeal swab. Given the need for a simple self-applied test that can be performed at home, our findings support the efficacy of self-collected unstimulated saliva samples in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, alleviating the demands for swab supplies, personal protective equipment, and healthcare personnel.