4.4 Article

Early-Morning vs Spot Posterior Oropharyngeal Saliva for Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Implication of Timing of Specimen Collection for Community-Wide Screening

期刊

OPEN FORUM INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 7, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa210

关键词

coronavirus; diagnosis; SARS-CoV-2; saliva; screening

资金

  1. Consultancy Service for Enhancing Laboratory Surveillance of Emerging Infectious Diseases and Research Capability on Antimicrobial Resistance for the Department of Health of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China
  2. Theme-Based Research Scheme of the Research Grants Council, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region [T11/707/15]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Posterior oropharyngeal saliva is increasingly recognized as a valid respiratory specimen for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. It is easy to collect and suitable for community-wide screening. The optimal timing of collection is currently unknown, and we speculate that an early-morning specimen before oral hygiene and breakfast would increase the diagnostic yield. Methods. Posterior oropharyngeal saliva was collected at 5 different time points within the same day from 18 patients with previously confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by molecular testing. Cycle threshold (Ct) values were compared. Results. There was an overall trend of lower Ct values from specimens collected in the early morning, with a gradual decrease of viral load towards nighttime, but reaching statistical significance only when compared with the specimens collected at bedtime. Eight out of 13 subjects had a higher viral load in the early morning than the rest of the 4 time points (before lunch, before teatime at 3 PM, before dinner, before bedtime). Methods. Posterior oropharyngeal saliva was collected at 5 different time points within the same day from 18 patients with previously confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by molecular testing. Cycle threshold (Ct) values were compared.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据