| Property | Value |
|---|
|
?:abstract
|
-
PURPOSE: PCR on a nasopharyngeal sample is the reference method for the detection of SARS-nCoV-2. However, combined throat/nasal sampling as a testing method has several advantages. We compared the combined throat/nasal sampling with nasopharyngeal sampling for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers suspected of COVID-19. METHODS: In 107 healthcare workers with symptoms of COVID-19, combined throat/nasal sampling and nasopharyngeal sampling was performed. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 was performed by RT-PCR targeting. RESULTS: A total of 80 healthcare workers (74.8%) tested negative with both sampling methods, and 25 healthcare workers (23.4%) tested positive with both sampling methods. There were two discrepant results with positive PCR in combined throat/nasal swabs and negative PCR in nasopharyngeal swabs (1.9%). The κ index for concordance between the 2 sampling methods was high (0.95). The median cycle threshold (Ct) value of PCR on nasopharyngeal samples was significantly lower than the Ct value of PCR on combined throat/nasal samples (19 (IQR 17–20) versus 21 (IQR 18–29) cycles, p value 0.01). CONCLUSION: Combined throat/nasal swabs yield a similar sensitivity to detect SARS-CoV-2 as nasopharyngeal swabs and are a good alternative sampling method, despite a lower Ct value for the nasopharyngeal samples.
|
|
?:creator
|
|
|
?:doi
|
|
|
?:doi
|
-
10.1007/s10096-020-03972-y
|
|
?:journal
|
-
Eur_J_Clin_Microbiol_Infect_Dis
|
|
?:license
|
|
|
?:pdf_json_files
|
-
document_parses/pdf_json/6ee8da8f0a54164cb9cc471fc3010f7c93066cd1.json
|
|
?:pmc_json_files
|
-
document_parses/pmc_json/PMC7359435.xml.json
|
|
?:pmcid
|
|
|
?:pmid
|
|
|
?:pmid
|
|
|
?:publication_isRelatedTo_Disease
|
|
|
?:sha_id
|
|
|
?:source
|
|
|
?:title
|
-
Combined throat/nasal swab sampling for SARS-CoV-2 is equivalent to nasopharyngeal sampling
|
|
?:type
|
|
|
?:year
|
|
![[This page as RDF]](https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/static/rdf-icon.gif){kind=icon}