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
Multicenter Study
. 2021 Nov;42(11):1340-1344.
doi: 10.1017/ice.2021.2. Epub 2021 Jan 13.

Detection of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in outpatients: A multicenter comparison of self-collected saline gargle, oral swab, and combined oral-anterior nasal swab to a provider collected nasopharyngeal swab

Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Detection of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in outpatients: A multicenter comparison of self-collected saline gargle, oral swab, and combined oral-anterior nasal swab to a provider collected nasopharyngeal swab

Christopher E Kandel et al. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2021 Nov.

Abstract

Background: Widespread testing for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is necessary to curb the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but testing is undermined when the only option is a nasopharyngeal swab. Self-collected swab techniques can overcome many of the disadvantages of a nasopharyngeal swab, but they require evaluation.

Methods: Three self-collected non-nasopharyngeal swab techniques (saline gargle, oral swab and combined oral-anterior nasal swab) were compared to a nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 detection at multiple COVID-19 assessment centers in Toronto, Canada. The performance characteristics of each test were assessed.

Results: The adjusted sensitivity of the saline gargle was 0.90 (95% CI 0.86-0.94), the oral swab was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.72-0.89) and the combined oral-anterior nasal swab was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.77-0.93) compared to a nasopharyngeal swab, which demonstrated a sensitivity of ˜90% when all positive tests were the reference standard. The median cycle threshold values for the SARS-CoV-2 E-gene for concordant and discordant saline gargle specimens were 17 and 31 (P < .001), for the oral swabs these values were 17 and 28 (P < .001), and for oral-anterior nasal swabs these values were 18 and 31 (P = .007).

Conclusions: Self-collected saline gargle and an oral-anterior nasal swab have a similar sensitivity to a nasopharyngeal swab for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. These alternative collection techniques are cheap and can eliminate barriers to testing, particularly in underserved populations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Cycle threshold values of the reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction of the E-gene target of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detected from a nasopharyngeal swab and the result of a paired saline gargle, oral swab or combined oral–anterior nasal swab by time from symptom onset in days (0 indicates those asymptomatic at the time of testing).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Kretzschmar ME, Rozhnova G, Bootsma MCJ, van Boven M, van de Wijgert JHHM, Bonten MJM. Impact of delays on effectiveness of contact tracing strategies for COVID-19: a modelling study. Lancet Pub Health 2020;5:452–459. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Marty FM, Chen K, Verrill KA. How to obtain a nasopharyngeal swab specimen. N Engl J Med 2020. 28;382(22):e76. - PubMed
    1. Williamson EJ, Walker AJ, Bhaskaran K, et al. Factors associated with COVID-19–related death using OpenSAFELY. Nature 2020;584:430–436. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Czumbel LM, Kiss S, Farkas N, et al. Saliva as a candidate for COVID-19 diagnostic testing: a meta-analysis. Front Med 2020;7:465. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kandel C, Zheng J, McCready J, et al. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from saliva as compared to nasopharyngeal swabs in outpatients. Viruses 2020;12(11):1314. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types