4.3 Article

Performance of at-home self-collected saliva and nasal-oropharyngeal swabs in the surveillance of COVID-19

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/20002297.2020.1858002

关键词

Saliva; coronavirus; PCR; primary health care; infection control; telemedicine

资金

  1. Laboratorios de Investigacao Medica -Hospital das Clinicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Sao Paulo

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the performance of saliva and combined nasal-oropharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection, finding a significant agreement between the two sample types. Saliva showed slightly higher sensitivity compared to combined swabs.
Background: SARS-CoV-2 quickly spreads in the worldwide population, imposing social restrictions to control the infection, being the massive testing another essential strategy to break the chain of transmission. Aim: To compare the performance of at-home self-collected samples - saliva and combined nasal-oropharyngeal swabs (NOP) - for SARS-CoV-2 detection in a telemedicine platform for COVID-19 surveillance. Material and methods: We analyzed 201 patients who met the criteria of suspected COVID-19. NOP sampling was combined (nostrils and oropharynx) and saliva collected using a cotton pad device. Detection of SARS-COV-2 was performed by using the Altona RealStar (R) SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Kit 1.0. Results: There was an overall significant agreement (kappa coefficient value of 0.58) between saliva and NOP. Considering results in either sample, 70 patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 were identified, with 52/70 being positive in NOP and 55/70 in saliva. This corresponds to sensitivities of 74.2% (95% CI; 63.7% to 83.1%) for NOP and 78.6% (95% CI; 67.6% to 86.6%) for saliva. Conclusion: Our data show the feasibility of using at-home self-collected samples (especially saliva), as an adequate alternative for SARS-CoV-2 detection. This new approach of testing can be useful to develop strategies for COVID-19 surveillance and for guiding public health decisions.

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

4.3
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