4.6 Article

Optimal Insertion Depth for Nasal Mid-Turbinate and Nasopharyngeal Swabs

Journal

DIAGNOSTICS
Volume 11, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11071257

Keywords

SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; antigen test; clinical validation; upper respiratory virus; virus diagnostics; mid-turbinate sample; nasopharyngeal sample; nasal swab

Funding

  1. Novo Nordisk Foundation [NNF21SA0069151]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study reveals that the optimal insertion depths for nasal mid-turbinate swabs are underestimated in current guidelines, providing clinical guidance for anatomically correct nasal and nasopharyngeal swab specimen collection for virus testing.
Millions of people are tested for COVID-19 daily during the pandemic, and a lack of evidence to guide optimal nasal swab testing can increase the risk of false-negative test results. This study aimed to determine the optimal insertion depth for nasal mid-turbinate and nasopharyngeal swabs. The measurements were made with a flexible endoscope during the collection of clinical specimens with a nasopharyngeal swab at a public COVID-19 test center in Copenhagen, Denmark. Participants were volunteer adults undergoing a nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test. All 109 participants (100%) completed the endoscopic measurements; 52 (48%) women; 103 (94%) white; mean age 34.39 (SD, 13.2) years; and mean height 176.7 (SD, 9.29) cm. The mean swab length to the posterior nasopharyngeal wall was 9.40 (SD, 0.64) cm. The mean endoscopic distance to the anterior and posterior end of the inferior turbinate was 1.95 (SD, 0.61) cm and 6.39 (SD, 0.62) cm, respectively. The mean depth to nasal mid-turbinate was calculated as 4.17 (SD, 0.48) cm. The optimal depths of insertion for nasal mid-turbinate swabs are underestimated in current guidelines compared with our findings. This study provides clinical evidence to guide the performance of anatomically correct nasal and nasopharyngeal swab specimen collection for virus testing.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available