A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Combined throat/nasal swab sampling for SARS-CoV-2 is equivalent to nasopharyngeal sampling. | LitMetric

Combined throat/nasal swab sampling for SARS-CoV-2 is equivalent to nasopharyngeal sampling.

Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis

Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Diakonessenhuis Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Published: January 2021

Purpose: PCR on a nasopharyngeal sample is the reference method for the detection of SARS-nCoV-2. However, combined throat/nasal sampling as a testing method has several advantages. We compared the combined throat/nasal sampling with nasopharyngeal sampling for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers suspected of COVID-19.

Methods: In 107 healthcare workers with symptoms of COVID-19, combined throat/nasal sampling and nasopharyngeal sampling was performed. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 was performed by RT-PCR targeting.

Results: A total of 80 healthcare workers (74.8%) tested negative with both sampling methods, and 25 healthcare workers (23.4%) tested positive with both sampling methods. There were two discrepant results with positive PCR in combined throat/nasal swabs and negative PCR in nasopharyngeal swabs (1.9%). The κ index for concordance between the 2 sampling methods was high (0.95). The median cycle threshold (Ct) value of PCR on nasopharyngeal samples was significantly lower than the Ct value of PCR on combined throat/nasal samples (19 (IQR 17-20) versus 21 (IQR 18-29) cycles, p value 0.01).

Conclusion: Combined throat/nasal swabs yield a similar sensitivity to detect SARS-CoV-2 as nasopharyngeal swabs and are a good alternative sampling method, despite a lower Ct value for the nasopharyngeal samples.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7359435PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10096-020-03972-yDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

combined throat/nasal
28
healthcare workers
16
nasopharyngeal sampling
12
pcr nasopharyngeal
12
throat/nasal sampling
12
sampling methods
12
sampling
11
nasopharyngeal
8
sampling nasopharyngeal
8
detection sars-cov-2
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!