Comparison of Patient-collected and Lab Technician-collected Nasopharyngeal and Oropharyngeal Swabs for Detection of COVID-19 by RT-PCR
- PMID: 32944044
- PMCID: PMC7477688
- DOI: 10.30699/ijp.2020.127312.2387
Comparison of Patient-collected and Lab Technician-collected Nasopharyngeal and Oropharyngeal Swabs for Detection of COVID-19 by RT-PCR
Abstract
Background & objective: A simple approach to prevent close contact in healthcare settings during the COVID-19 outbreak is to train patients to collect their own nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs and deliver them to medical laboratories to have them processed. The aim of our study was to compare lab technician- with patient- collected oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal samples for detection of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) using rapid real-time polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR).
Methods: Fifty adult patients with flu-like symptoms and radiologic findings compatible with atypical pneumonia who were admitted to the infectious diseases ward of Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, Tehran, Iran, with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 from February 28 to April 27 of 2020 were randomly selected and entered in our study. Two sets of naso- and oropharyngeal swabs were collected, one set by a lab technician and the other by the patients, and the COVID-19 rRT-PCR test was performed.
Results: Of 50 selected cases, in seven patients all collected naso- and oropharyngeal swabs tested positive, and in 22 patients all samples tested negative for COVID-19 in rRT-PCR. Discrepancies between rRT-PCR results of lab technician- and patient-collected swabs were observed in 12 nasopharyngeal and 13 oropharyngeal specimens. Positive lab technician-collected and negative patient-collected samples were observed in 10 and 5 nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal specimens, respectively. Negative lab technician-collected and positive patient-collected samples were observed in two and seven nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal specimens, respectively. The overall percentage of agreement among both nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs taken by a lab technician and patients was 76% with a kappa value of 0.49 (P=0.001).
Conclusion: Based on our findings, lab technician-collected naso- and oropharyngeal swabs cannot be replaced by patient-collected ones with regard to COVID-19 rRT-PCR.
Keywords: COVID-19; Nasopharynx; Oropharynx; Real-time polymerase chain reaction; Specimen collection.
Similar articles
-
Detection of coronavirus-2 by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction in conjunctival swabs from patients with severe form of Coronavirus disease 2019 in São Paulo, Brazil.Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2021 Jul 16;76:e2913. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2021/e2913. eCollection 2021. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2021. PMID: 34287482 Free PMC article.
-
Detection and analysis of nucleic acid in various biological samples of COVID-19 patients.Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020 Sep-Oct;37:101673. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101673. Epub 2020 Apr 18. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020. PMID: 32311437 Free PMC article.
-
Performance & clinical utility of oropharyngeal versus nasopharyngeal swabs in COVID-19.Indian J Med Res. 2022 Sep;156(3):478-483. doi: 10.4103/ijmr.ijmr_2275_21. Indian J Med Res. 2022. PMID: 36510889 Free PMC article.
-
Detection profile of SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR in different types of clinical specimens: A systematic review and meta-analysis.J Med Virol. 2021 Feb;93(2):719-725. doi: 10.1002/jmv.26349. Epub 2020 Aug 2. J Med Virol. 2021. PMID: 32706393 Free PMC article.
-
Diagnostic performance of different sampling approaches for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 Sep;21(9):1233-1245. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00146-8. Epub 2021 Apr 12. Lancet Infect Dis. 2021. PMID: 33857405 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Nucleic Acid and Immunological Diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: Processes, Platforms and Pitfalls.Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 Oct 23;10(11):866. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics10110866. Diagnostics (Basel). 2020. PMID: 33114057 Free PMC article. Review.
-
A rapid real-time polymerase chain reaction-based live virus microneutralization assay for detection of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in blood/serum.PLoS One. 2021 Dec 10;16(12):e0259551. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259551. eCollection 2021. PLoS One. 2021. PMID: 34890401 Free PMC article.
-
Different Respiratory Samples for COVID-19 Detection by Standard and Direct Quantitative RT-PCR: A Literature Review.Iran J Pharm Res. 2021 Summer;20(3):285-299. doi: 10.22037/ijpr.2021.115458.15383. Iran J Pharm Res. 2021. PMID: 34903989 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Recent trends in carbon nanotube (CNT)-based biosensors for the fast and sensitive detection of human viruses: a critical review.Nanoscale Adv. 2022 Nov 9;5(4):992-1010. doi: 10.1039/d2na00236a. eCollection 2023 Feb 14. Nanoscale Adv. 2022. PMID: 36798507 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The use of DIY (Do it yourself) sampling and telemonitoring model for COVID-19 qPCR testing scale up.PLoS One. 2021 Nov 4;16(11):e0259398. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259398. eCollection 2021. PLoS One. 2021. PMID: 34735503 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Buddhisha Udugama, Pranav Kadhireson, Hannah N, Kozlowski , et al. Diagnosing COVID-19 :The disease and tools for detection. 2020 March - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous