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
. 2023 Sep 1;43(5):434-442.
doi: 10.3343/alm.2023.43.5.434. Epub 2023 Apr 21.

Comparison of Nasal Swabs, Nasopharyngeal Swabs, and Saliva Samples for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 and other Respiratory Virus Infections

Affiliations

Comparison of Nasal Swabs, Nasopharyngeal Swabs, and Saliva Samples for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 and other Respiratory Virus Infections

Eun Ju Jung et al. Ann Lab Med. .

Abstract

Background: Nasal swabs and saliva samples are being considered alternatives to nasopharyngeal swabs (NPSs) for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2); however, few studies have compared the usefulness of nasal swabs, NPSs, and saliva samples for detecting SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory virus infections. We compared the positivity rates and concentrations of viruses detected in nasal swabs, NPSs, and saliva samples using cycle threshold (Ct) values from real-time PCR tests for respiratory viruses.

Methods: In total, 236 samples (48 five-rub and 10 10-rub nasal swabs, 96 NPSs collected using two different products, 48 saliva swabs, and 34 undiluted saliva samples) from 48 patients (34 patients with SARS-CoV-2 and 14 with other respiratory virus infections) and 40 samples from eight healthy controls were obtained. The PCR positivity and Ct values were compared using Allplex Respiratory Panels 1/2/3 and Allplex SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR.

Results: NPSs showed the lowest Ct values (indicating the highest virus concentrations); however, nasal and saliva samples yielded positive results for SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses. The median Ct value for SARS-CoV-2 E gene PCR using nasal swab samples collected with 10 rubs was significantly different from that obtained using nasal swabs collected with five rubs (Ct=24.3 vs. 28.9; P=0.002), but not from that obtained using NPSs.

Conclusions: Our results confirm that the NPS is the best sample type for detecting respiratory viruses, but nasal swabs and saliva samples can be alternatives to NPSs. Vigorously and sufficiently rubbed nasal swabs can provide SARS-CoV-2 concentrations similar to those obtained with NPSs.

Keywords: Nasal; Nasopharynx; PCR; Respiratory virus; SARS-CoV-2; Saliva; Swab.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

None declared.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Photograph of the five types of sample collection devices and the transport medium. (A) NPS (NFS-1; Noble Bio), (B) NPS (Copan), (C) nasal swab (SS-1, Noble Bio), (D) saliva swab (SLS-1; Noble Bio), (E) saliva collection tube (Noble Bio), and (F) clinical transport medium (Noble Bio). Abbreviation: NPS, nasopharyngeal swab.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Comparison of Ct values of real-time PCR targeting SARS-CoV-2 genes and RNase P among the six collection methods (N=10). (A) SARS-CoV-2 E gene, (B) SARS-CoV-2 RdRP gene, (C) SARS-CoV-2 N gene, and (D) Human RNase P gene. The positivity rate of each method is expressed as a percentage. *indicates P<0.05. Abbreviations: Ct, cycle threshold; SARS-CoV-2, severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2; NPS, nasopharyngeal swab; Nasal (5), nasal swab with five rotations in one nostril; Nasal (10), nasal swab with 10 rotations in one nostril.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Miller JM, Binnicker MJ, Campbell S, Carroll KC, Chapin KC, Gilligan PH, et al. A guide to utilization of the microbiology laboratory for diagnosis of infectious diseases: 2018 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Society for Microbiology. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;67:e1–e94. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy381. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hong KH, Kim GJ, Roh KH, Sung H, Lee J, Kim SY, et al. Update of guidelines for laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 in Korea. Ann Lab Med. 2022;42:391–7. doi: 10.3343/alm.2022.42.4.391. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Oh SM, Jeong H, Chang E, Choe PG, Kang CK, Park WB, et al. Clinical application of the standard Q COVID-19 Ag test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection. J Korean Med Sci. 2021;36:e101. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e101. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Corman VM, Haage VC, Bleicker T, Schmidt ML, Mühlemann B, Zuchowski M, et al. Comparison of seven commercial SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care antigen tests: a single-centre laboratory evaluation study. Lancet Microbe. 2021;2:e311–9. doi: 10.1016/S2666-5247(21)00056-2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Torjesen I. Covid-19: How the UK is using lateral flow tests in the pandemic. BMJ. 2021;372:n287. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n287. - DOI - PubMed