4.6 Article

Performance Analysis of Self-Collected Nasal and Oral Swabs for Detection of SARS-CoV-2

Journal

DIAGNOSTICS
Volume 12, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12102279

Keywords

SARS-CoV-2; mRT-qPCR; HCW-collection; self-collection; large-scale sampling; viral load

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, the virus detection rate of self-collected swabs was compared to HCW-collected swabs. The results showed that the viral load in HCW-collected swabs was slightly higher than that in self-collected swabs. However, self-collection showed comparable sensitivity and specificity to HCW-collection, indicating that it can be a reliable alternative.
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the third highly pathogenic human coronavirus and is rapidly transmitted by infected individuals regardless of their symptoms. During the COVID-19 pandemic, owing to the dearth of skilled healthcare workers (HCWs) to collect samples for early diagnosis, self-collection emerged as a viable alternative. To evaluate the reliability of self-collection, we compared the virus detection rate using 3990 self-collected swabs and HCW-collected swabs, procured from the same individuals and collected immediately after the self-collection. The results of multiplex reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction revealed that the viral load in the HCW-collected swabs was marginally (18.4-28.8 times) higher than that in self-collected swabs. Self-collection showed no significant difference in sensitivity and specificity from HCW-collection (kappa = 0.87, McNemar's test; p = 0.19), indicating a comparable performance. These findings suggest that self-collected swabs are acceptable substitutes for HCW-collected swabs, and that their use improved the specimen screening efficiency and reduced the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

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