Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2019 Aug 26;57(9):e00027-19.
doi: 10.1128/JCM.00027-19. Print 2019 Sep.

Comparison of Respiratory Specimen Collection Methods for Detection of Influenza Virus Infection by Reverse Transcription-PCR: a Literature Review

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of Respiratory Specimen Collection Methods for Detection of Influenza Virus Infection by Reverse Transcription-PCR: a Literature Review

Sarah Spencer et al. J Clin Microbiol. .

Abstract

The detection of influenza virus in respiratory specimens from ill individuals is the most commonly used method to identify influenza virus infection. A number of respiratory specimen types may be used, including swabs, brush, aspirate, and wash, and specimens may be collected from numerous sites, including the anterior and posterior nasopharynx, oropharynx, and nares. Traditionally, respiratory specimens from the nasopharynx have been considered to have the highest sensitivity for viral detection. However, as molecular assays such as reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) have increased the sensitivity of viral detection from respiratory specimens, the use of less-invasive and easier-to-obtain specimens has increased for the detection of influenza virus. This review presents and evaluates the sensitivities of respiratory specimen methods used in epidemiologic studies that used RT-PCR to detect influenza virus in respiratory specimens from ill patients. This literature review suggested that a combination of two less-invasive swabbing methods, such as nasal and oropharyngeal swabs, had about the same sensitivity as did nasopharyngeal specimens for influenza virus detection by RT-PCR. By combining two less-invasive collection methods, it may be possible to reduce barriers to enrollment without compromising influenza virus detection sensitivity.

Keywords: RT-PCR; influenza; respiratory specimen.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Kim DK, Poudel B. 2013. Tools to detect influenza virus. Yonsei Med J 54:560–566. doi:10.3349/ymj.2013.54.3.560. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Loens K, Van Heirstraeten L, Malhotra-Kumar S, Goossens H, Ieven M. 2009. Optimal sampling sites and methods for detection of pathogens possibly causing community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections. J Clin Microbiol 47:21–31. doi:10.1128/JCM.02037-08. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Robinson JL, Lee BE, Kothapalli S, Craig WR, Fox JD. 2008. Use of throat swab or saliva specimens for detection of respiratory viruses in children. Clin Infect Dis 46:e61–e64. doi:10.1086/529386. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Smit M, Beynon KA, Murdoch DR, Jennings LC. 2007. Comparison of the NOW Influenza A & B, NOW Flu A, NOW Flu B, and Directigen Flu A+B assays, and immunofluorescence with viral culture for the detection of influenza A and B viruses. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 57:67–70. doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2006.11.003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Atmar RL, Baxter BD, Dominguez EA, Taber LH. 1996. Comparison of reverse transcription-PCR with tissue culture and other rapid diagnostic assays for detection of type A influenza virus. J Clin Microbiol 34:2604–2606. - PMC - PubMed