• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Int J Infect Dis. Comparison of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection in 353 patients received tests with both specimens sim

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Int J Infect Dis. 2020 Apr 18. pii: S1201-9712(20)30235-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.04.023. [Epub ahead of print]
Comparison of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection in 353 patients received tests with both specimens simultaneously.


Wang X[SUP]1[/SUP], Tan L[SUP]2[/SUP], Wang X[SUP]1[/SUP], Liu W[SUP]1[/SUP], Lu Y[SUP]3[/SUP], Cheng L[SUP]4[/SUP], Sun Z[SUP]5[/SUP].

Author information




Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Since the outbreak of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in Wuhan in December 2019, by March 10, 2020, a total of 80,932 confirmed cases have been reported in China. Two consecutively negative RT-PCR test results in respiratory tract specimens is required for the evaluation of discharge from hospital, and oropharyngeal swabs were the most common sample. However, false negative results occurred in the late stage of hospitalization, and avoiding false negative result is critical essential.
METHODS:

We reviewed the medical record of 353 patients who received tests with both specimens simultaneously, and compared the performance between nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs.
RESULTS:

Of the 353 patients (outpatients, 192; inpatients, 161) studied, the median age was 54 years, and 177 (50.1%) were women. Higher positive rate (positive tests/total tests) was observed in nasopharyngeal swabs than oropharyngeal swabs, especially in inpatients. Nasopharyngeal swabs from inpatients showed higher positive rate than outpatients. Nasopharyngeal swabs from male showed higher positive rate than female, especially in outpatients. Detection with both specimens slightly increased the positive rate than nasopharyngeal swab only. Moreover, the consistency between from nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs were poor (Kappa=0.308).
CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, our study suggests that nasopharyngeal swabs may be more suitable than oropharyngeal swab at this stage of COVID-19 outbreak.
Copyright ? 2020 The AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.



KEYWORDS:

2019-nCoV; COVID-19; RT-PCR; SARS-CoV-2


PMID:32315809DOI:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.04.023
 
Back
Top