tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
J Clin Virol. 2019 Aug 2;118:28-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2019.07.010. [Epub ahead of print]
[h=1]Self-collected compared with professional-collected swabbing in the diagnosis of influenza in symptomatic individuals: A meta-analysis and assessment of validity.[/h] Seaman CP[SUP]1[/SUP], Tran LTT[SUP]1[/SUP], Cowling BJ[SUP]2[/SUP], Sullivan SG[SUP]3[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h] 1 School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 2 WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. 3 School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; WHO Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza, Royal Melbourne Hospital, and the Doherty Department, University of Melbourne, at the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Epidemiology, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, USA. Electronic address: sheena.sullivan@influenzacentre.org.
[h=3]Abstract[/h] Self-collected nasal swabs offer a cheaper alternative to professional-collected swabs for influenza testing. However, the diagnostic accuracy of self-collection has not been quantitatively reviewed. We identified 14 studies that compared diagnostic accuracy of self-collected to professional-collected swabs in influenza symptomatic individuals. Self-collected swabs were found to be highly acceptable, simple and comfortable to use. Data from nine studies were meta-analyzed. Pooled sensitivity was 87% (95% CI: 80%, 92%) and specificity was 99% (95% CI: 98%, 100%), compared to professional-collected swabs in the diagnosis of influenza. Pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates were used to assess the potential bias that would be introduced in studies had self-collected rather than professional-collected samples been used. While self-collected swabbing should not replace the role of clinical testing, our findings support the use of self-collected swabs for influenza research and surveillance. This method will be an important tool for evaluating novel influenza vaccines and vaccination strategies.
Copyright ? 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] Diagnostic accuracy; Influenza; Nasal swabbing; Self-swabbing; Systematic review
PMID: 31400670 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2019.07.010
[h=1]Self-collected compared with professional-collected swabbing in the diagnosis of influenza in symptomatic individuals: A meta-analysis and assessment of validity.[/h] Seaman CP[SUP]1[/SUP], Tran LTT[SUP]1[/SUP], Cowling BJ[SUP]2[/SUP], Sullivan SG[SUP]3[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h] 1 School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 2 WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. 3 School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; WHO Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza, Royal Melbourne Hospital, and the Doherty Department, University of Melbourne, at the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Epidemiology, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, USA. Electronic address: sheena.sullivan@influenzacentre.org.
[h=3]Abstract[/h] Self-collected nasal swabs offer a cheaper alternative to professional-collected swabs for influenza testing. However, the diagnostic accuracy of self-collection has not been quantitatively reviewed. We identified 14 studies that compared diagnostic accuracy of self-collected to professional-collected swabs in influenza symptomatic individuals. Self-collected swabs were found to be highly acceptable, simple and comfortable to use. Data from nine studies were meta-analyzed. Pooled sensitivity was 87% (95% CI: 80%, 92%) and specificity was 99% (95% CI: 98%, 100%), compared to professional-collected swabs in the diagnosis of influenza. Pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates were used to assess the potential bias that would be introduced in studies had self-collected rather than professional-collected samples been used. While self-collected swabbing should not replace the role of clinical testing, our findings support the use of self-collected swabs for influenza research and surveillance. This method will be an important tool for evaluating novel influenza vaccines and vaccination strategies.
Copyright ? 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] Diagnostic accuracy; Influenza; Nasal swabbing; Self-swabbing; Systematic review
PMID: 31400670 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2019.07.010