Combined oropharyngeal/nasal swab is equivalent to nasopharyngeal sampling for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic PCR
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Background
Early 2020, a COVID-19 epidemic became a public health emergency of international concern. To address this pandemic broad testing with an easy, comfortable and reliable testing method is of utmost concern. Nasopharyngeal (NP) swab sampling is the reference method though hampered by international supply shortages. A new oropharyngeal/nasal (OP/N) sampling method was investigated using the more readily available throat swab.
Results
35 patients were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 by means of either NP or OP/N sampling. The paired swabs were both positive in 31 patients. The one patient who tested negative on both NP and OP/N swab on admission, was ultimately diagnosed on bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. A strong correlation was found between the viral RNA loads of the paired swabs ( r = 0.76; P < 0.05). The sensitivity of NP and OP/N analysis in hospitalized patients ( n = 28) was 89.3% and 92.7% respectively.
Conclusions
This study demonstrates equivalence of NP and OP/N sampling for detection of SARS-CoV-2 by means of rRT-PCR. Sensitivity of both NP and OP/N sampling is very high in hospitalized patients.
Article activity feed
-
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.05.20123745: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: The study was approved by the ethical review board Ghent University Hospital (BC-07662). Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.05.20123745: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: The study was approved by the ethical review board Ghent University Hospital (BC-07662). Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
