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
. 2021 Oct;49(5):927-934.
doi: 10.1007/s15010-021-01614-9. Epub 2021 May 10.

Self-sampling versus health care professional-guided swab collection for SARS-CoV-2 testing

Silvia Würstle  1 , Christoph D Spinner  2   3 , Florian Voit  1 , Dieter Hoffmann  4 , Svenja Hering  4 , Simon Weidlich  1   5 , Jochen Schneider  1   5 , Alexander Zink  6 , Matthias Treiber  1 , Roman Iakoubov  1 , Roland M Schmid  1 , Ulrike Protzer  5   4 , Johanna Erber  1
Affiliations

Self-sampling versus health care professional-guided swab collection for SARS-CoV-2 testing

Silvia Würstle et al. Infection. 2021 Oct.

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic reliability and practicability of self-collected oropharyngeal swab samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection as self-sampling could enable broader testing availability and reduce both personal protective equipment and potential exposure.

Methods: Hospitalized SARS-CoV-2-infected patients were asked to collect two oropharyngeal swabs (SC-OPS1/2), and an additional oropharyngeal swab was collected by a health care professional (HCP-OPS). SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing for samples from 58 participants was performed, with a 48-h delay in half of the self-collected samples (SC-OPS2). The sensitivity, probability of concordance, and interrater reliability were calculated. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess predictive factors. Practicability was evaluated through a questionnaire.

Results: The test sensitivity for HCP-OPS, SC-OPS1, and SC-OPS2 was 88%, 78%, and 77%, respectively. Combining both SC-OPS results increased the estimated sensitivity to 88%. The concordance probability between HCP-OPS and SC-OPS1 was 77.6% and 82.5% between SC-OPS1 and SC-OPS2, respectively. Of the participants, 69% affirmed performing future self-sampling at home, and 34% preferred self-sampling over HCP-guided testing. Participants with both positive HCP-OPS1 and SC-OPS1 indicating no challenges during self-sampling had more differences in viral load levels between HCP-OPS1 and SC-OPS1 than those who indicated challenges. Increasing disease duration and the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgG correlated with negative test results in self-collected samples of previously confirmed SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals.

Conclusion: Oropharyngeal self-sampling is an applicable testing approach for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. Self-sampling tends to be more effective in early versus late infection and symptom onset, and the collection of two distinct samples is recommended to maintain high test sensitivity.

Keywords: COVID-19; Oropharyngeal; SARS-CoV-2; Self-sampling; Swab.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors aside of Christoph D. Spinner and Simon Weidlich declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Christoph Spinner reports grants, personal fees, non-financial support and other from AbbVie, grants, personal fees, non-financial support and other from Apeiron, personal fees from Formycon, grants, personal fees, non-financial support and other from Gilead Sciences, grants, personal fees and other from Eli Lilly, grants, personal fees, non-financial support and other from Janssen-Cilag, grants, personal fees, non-financial support and other from GSK/ViiV Healthcare, grants, personal fees, non-financial support and other from MSD, outside the submitted work. Simon Weidlich reports personal fees and non-financial support from Gilead Sciences and Janssen-Cilag outside the submitted work.

References

    1. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak situation. 2020. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019. Accessed 16 Jan 2021.
    1. Patel A, Jernigan DB. Initial public health response and interim clinical guidance for the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak—United States, December 31, 2019-February 4, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69:140–146. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6905e1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tu YP, Jennings R, Hart B, Cangelosi GA, Wood RC, Wehber K, Verma P, Vojta D, Berke EM. Swabs collected by patients or health care workers for SARS-CoV-2 testing. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:494–496. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2016321. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. McCulloch DJ, Kim AE, Wilcox NC, Logue JK, Greninger AL, Englund JA, Chu HY. Comparison of unsupervised home self-collected midnasal swabs with clinician-collected nasopharyngeal swabs for detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3:e2016382. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.16382. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wehrhahn MC, Robson J, Brown S, Bursle E, Byrne S, New D, Chong S, Newcombe JP, Siversten T, Hadlow N. Self-collection: an appropriate alternative during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. J Clin Virol. 2020;128:104417. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104417. - DOI - PMC - PubMed