Comparison of saliva and oro-nasopharyngeal swab sample in the molecular diagnosis of COVID-19
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2020 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online) |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302020000801116 |
Resumo: | SUMMARY BACKGROUND Healthcare personnel are at risk of becoming infected while taking upper and/or lower respiratory tract specimens. Therefore, there is a need for sampling methods that do not risk infecting them. In this study, we aimed to compare the saliva and Oro-Nasopharyngeal Swab (ONS) sampling methods. METHODS Patients were divided into three groups. Group 1 included patients whose diagnosis of COVID-19 was confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Group 2 included patients with COVID-19 compatible findings in lung computed tomography (CT), but with a negative PCR. Group 3 included patients who presented to the emergency department with COVID-19 compatible complaints but had normal CT. Saliva and ONS samples were taken on the third day of hospitalization in groups 1 and 2, whereas in group 3, they were taken at the time of admission to the hospital. RESULTS A total of 64 patients were included in the study. The average age was 51.04 ± 17.9 years, and 37 (57.8%) were male. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 27 (42.2%) patients’ saliva samples. While the sensitivity and positive predictive value of saliva samples were 85.2%, specificity and negative predictive value were 89.2%. The value of kappa was in substantial agreement (0.744), and it was found statistically significant (<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Saliva samples can be used instead of ONS samples in detecting SARS-CoV-2. Investigating SARS-CoV-2 with saliva is cheaper, easier for the patient and overall, and, most importantly, it poses much less risk of SARS-CoV-2 contamination to healthcare personnel. |
id |
AMB-1_41054c5f51b08fa5f87dcfe73e08b32a |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S0104-42302020000801116 |
network_acronym_str |
AMB-1 |
network_name_str |
Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Comparison of saliva and oro-nasopharyngeal swab sample in the molecular diagnosis of COVID-19Coronavirus Infections/diagnosisSalivaHealth PersonnelBetacoronavirusSUMMARY BACKGROUND Healthcare personnel are at risk of becoming infected while taking upper and/or lower respiratory tract specimens. Therefore, there is a need for sampling methods that do not risk infecting them. In this study, we aimed to compare the saliva and Oro-Nasopharyngeal Swab (ONS) sampling methods. METHODS Patients were divided into three groups. Group 1 included patients whose diagnosis of COVID-19 was confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Group 2 included patients with COVID-19 compatible findings in lung computed tomography (CT), but with a negative PCR. Group 3 included patients who presented to the emergency department with COVID-19 compatible complaints but had normal CT. Saliva and ONS samples were taken on the third day of hospitalization in groups 1 and 2, whereas in group 3, they were taken at the time of admission to the hospital. RESULTS A total of 64 patients were included in the study. The average age was 51.04 ± 17.9 years, and 37 (57.8%) were male. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 27 (42.2%) patients’ saliva samples. While the sensitivity and positive predictive value of saliva samples were 85.2%, specificity and negative predictive value were 89.2%. The value of kappa was in substantial agreement (0.744), and it was found statistically significant (<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Saliva samples can be used instead of ONS samples in detecting SARS-CoV-2. Investigating SARS-CoV-2 with saliva is cheaper, easier for the patient and overall, and, most importantly, it poses much less risk of SARS-CoV-2 contamination to healthcare personnel.Associação Médica Brasileira2020-08-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302020000801116Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira v.66 n.8 2020reponame:Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)instname:Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)instacron:AMB10.1590/1806-9282.66.8.1116info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessGüçlü,ErtuğrulKoroglu,MehmetYürümez,YusufToptan,HandeKose,ElifGüneysu,FatihKarabay,Oğuzeng2020-09-09T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0104-42302020000801116Revistahttps://ramb.amb.org.br/ultimas-edicoes/#https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||ramb@amb.org.br1806-92820104-4230opendoar:2020-09-09T00:00Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online) - Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Comparison of saliva and oro-nasopharyngeal swab sample in the molecular diagnosis of COVID-19 |
title |
Comparison of saliva and oro-nasopharyngeal swab sample in the molecular diagnosis of COVID-19 |
spellingShingle |
Comparison of saliva and oro-nasopharyngeal swab sample in the molecular diagnosis of COVID-19 Güçlü,Ertuğrul Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis Saliva Health Personnel Betacoronavirus |
title_short |
Comparison of saliva and oro-nasopharyngeal swab sample in the molecular diagnosis of COVID-19 |
title_full |
Comparison of saliva and oro-nasopharyngeal swab sample in the molecular diagnosis of COVID-19 |
title_fullStr |
Comparison of saliva and oro-nasopharyngeal swab sample in the molecular diagnosis of COVID-19 |
title_full_unstemmed |
Comparison of saliva and oro-nasopharyngeal swab sample in the molecular diagnosis of COVID-19 |
title_sort |
Comparison of saliva and oro-nasopharyngeal swab sample in the molecular diagnosis of COVID-19 |
author |
Güçlü,Ertuğrul |
author_facet |
Güçlü,Ertuğrul Koroglu,Mehmet Yürümez,Yusuf Toptan,Hande Kose,Elif Güneysu,Fatih Karabay,Oğuz |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Koroglu,Mehmet Yürümez,Yusuf Toptan,Hande Kose,Elif Güneysu,Fatih Karabay,Oğuz |
author2_role |
author author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Güçlü,Ertuğrul Koroglu,Mehmet Yürümez,Yusuf Toptan,Hande Kose,Elif Güneysu,Fatih Karabay,Oğuz |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis Saliva Health Personnel Betacoronavirus |
topic |
Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis Saliva Health Personnel Betacoronavirus |
description |
SUMMARY BACKGROUND Healthcare personnel are at risk of becoming infected while taking upper and/or lower respiratory tract specimens. Therefore, there is a need for sampling methods that do not risk infecting them. In this study, we aimed to compare the saliva and Oro-Nasopharyngeal Swab (ONS) sampling methods. METHODS Patients were divided into three groups. Group 1 included patients whose diagnosis of COVID-19 was confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Group 2 included patients with COVID-19 compatible findings in lung computed tomography (CT), but with a negative PCR. Group 3 included patients who presented to the emergency department with COVID-19 compatible complaints but had normal CT. Saliva and ONS samples were taken on the third day of hospitalization in groups 1 and 2, whereas in group 3, they were taken at the time of admission to the hospital. RESULTS A total of 64 patients were included in the study. The average age was 51.04 ± 17.9 years, and 37 (57.8%) were male. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 27 (42.2%) patients’ saliva samples. While the sensitivity and positive predictive value of saliva samples were 85.2%, specificity and negative predictive value were 89.2%. The value of kappa was in substantial agreement (0.744), and it was found statistically significant (<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Saliva samples can be used instead of ONS samples in detecting SARS-CoV-2. Investigating SARS-CoV-2 with saliva is cheaper, easier for the patient and overall, and, most importantly, it poses much less risk of SARS-CoV-2 contamination to healthcare personnel. |
publishDate |
2020 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2020-08-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302020000801116 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302020000801116 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/1806-9282.66.8.1116 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Associação Médica Brasileira |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Associação Médica Brasileira |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira v.66 n.8 2020 reponame:Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online) instname:Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB) instacron:AMB |
instname_str |
Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB) |
instacron_str |
AMB |
institution |
AMB |
reponame_str |
Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online) |
collection |
Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online) - Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||ramb@amb.org.br |
_version_ |
1754212835215278080 |