4.4 Article

Comparison of four nasal sampling methods for the detection of viral pathogens by RT-PCR-A GA2LEN project

Journal

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGICAL METHODS
Volume 156, Issue 1-2, Pages 102-106

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2008.10.027

Keywords

Upper respiratory infection; Nasal aspirate; Nasal brush; Nasal swab; Nasal wash; RT-PCR

Funding

  1. GA2LEN (Global Allergy and Asthma European Network)
  2. EU Framework programme for research [FOOD-CF-2004-506378]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and patient discomfort between four techniques for obtaining nasal secretions. Nasal secretions from 58 patients with symptoms of a common cold, from three clinical centers (Amsterdam, Lodz. Oslo), were obtained by four different methods: swab, aspirate, brush. and wash. In each patient all four sampling procedures were per-formed and patient discomfort was evaluated by a visual discomfort scale (scale 1-5) after each procedure. Single pathogen RT-PCRs for Rhinovirus (RV), Influenza virus and Adenovirus, and multiplex real-time PCR for RV, Enterovirus, Influenza virus, Adenovirus, Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), Parainfluenza virus, Coronavirus, Metapneumovirus, Bocavirus and Parechovirus were performed in all samples. A specific viral cause of respiratory tract infection was determined in 48 patients (83%). In these, the detection rate for any virus was 88% (wash), 79% (aspirate), 77% (swab) and 74% (brush). The degree of discomfort reported was 2.54 for swabs, 2.63 for washes, 2.68 for aspirates and 3.61 for brushings. Nasal washes yielded the highest rate of viral detection without excessive patient discomfort. In contrast, nasal brushes produced the lowest detection rates and demonstrated the highest level of discomfort. (c) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available