A comparative study of nasal and pharyngeal swabs in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019_Chinese Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Authors：

LIU Yanbin ¹ , LIU Tao ² , CUI Yue ² , WANG Bo ³ ,  LUO Fengming ³

1. Center of Infectious Diseases, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, P. R. China;
2. The Red Cross Hospital of Wuhan (The Eleventh Hospital of Wuhan City), Wuhan, Hubei 430015, P. R. China;
3. Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, P. R. China;

Corresponding author：

LUO Fengming, Email: luofengming@hotmail.com

Keywords：

Coronavirus disease 2019; Oropharyngeal swab; Nasopharyngeal swab; Nucleic acid detection

DOI：

10.7507/1671-6205.202002088

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To investigate a more convenient and safe sampling method for viral nucleic acid detection of coronavirus disease 2019.Methods An oropharyngeal swab and nasopharyngeal swab were simultaneously taken from 100 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in a hospital in Wuhan. Then the efficacies of two sampling methods were compared on the positive rates of viral nucleic acid detection.Results The positive rate for SARS-CoV-2 was 54% in oropharyngeal swabs, while 89% positive in nasopharyngeal swabs. There was a significant difference in the detection rate between oropharyngeal swab and nasopharyngeal swab (χ²=3.850 4, P=0.049 7).Conclusions The positive rate for nucleic acid testing from nasopharyngeal swabs are significantly better than that from oropharyngeal swabs. Therefore, sampling by nasopharyngeal swabs, rather than oropharyngeal swabs, should be chosen as the preferred virological screening method for patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Citation： LIU Yanbin, LIU Tao, CUI Yue, WANG Bo, LUO Fengming. A comparative study of nasal and pharyngeal swabs in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019. Chinese Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 2020, 19(2): 141-143. doi: 10.7507/1671-6205.202002088 Copy

1.	Mahony JB. Detection of respiratory viruses by molecular methods. Clin Microbiol Rev, 2008, 21(4): 716-747.
2.	de la Tabla VO, Masiá M, Antequera P, et al. Comparison of combined nose-throat swabs with nasopharyngeal aspirates for detection of pandemic influenza A/H1N1 2009 virus by real-time reverse transcriptase PCR. J Clin Micro, 2010, 48(10): 3492-3495.
3.	Dalmaso G, Bini M, Paroni R, et al. Qualification of high-recovery, flocked swabs as compared to traditional rayon swabs for microbiological environmental monitoring of surfaces. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol, 2008, 62(3): 191-199.
4.	Daley P, Castriciano S, Chernesky M, et al. Comparison of flocked and rayon swabs for collection of respiratory epithelial cells from uninfected volunteers and symptomatic patients. J Clin Microbiol, 2006, 44(6): 2265-2267.
5.	巴华杰, 金明, 王林生, 等. 尼龙植绒拭子与棉拭子血痕 DNA 分型效果比较. 中国法医学杂志, 2015, 30(3): 277-280.
6.	Brownlow RJ, Dagnall KE, Ames CE. A comparison of DNA collection and retrieval from two swab types (cotton and nylon flocked swab) when processed using three QIAGEN extraction methods. J Forensic Sci, 2012, 57(3): 713-717.
7.	Zou L, Ruan F, Huang M, et al. SARS-CoV-2 viral load in upper respiratory specimens of infected patients. N Engl J Med, 2020 Feb 19. [Epub ahead of print] https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMc2001737.
8.	Hernes SS, Quarsten H, Hagen E, et al. Swabbing for respiratory viral infections in older patients: a comparison of rayon and nylon flocked swabs. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis, 2011, 30(2): 159-165.

1. Mahony JB. Detection of respiratory viruses by molecular methods. Clin Microbiol Rev, 2008, 21(4): 716-747.
2. de la Tabla VO, Masiá M, Antequera P, et al. Comparison of combined nose-throat swabs with nasopharyngeal aspirates for detection of pandemic influenza A/H1N1 2009 virus by real-time reverse transcriptase PCR. J Clin Micro, 2010, 48(10): 3492-3495.
3. Dalmaso G, Bini M, Paroni R, et al. Qualification of high-recovery, flocked swabs as compared to traditional rayon swabs for microbiological environmental monitoring of surfaces. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol, 2008, 62(3): 191-199.
4. Daley P, Castriciano S, Chernesky M, et al. Comparison of flocked and rayon swabs for collection of respiratory epithelial cells from uninfected volunteers and symptomatic patients. J Clin Microbiol, 2006, 44(6): 2265-2267.
5. 巴华杰, 金明, 王林生, 等. 尼龙植绒拭子与棉拭子血痕 DNA 分型效果比较. 中国法医学杂志, 2015, 30(3): 277-280.
6. Brownlow RJ, Dagnall KE, Ames CE. A comparison of DNA collection and retrieval from two swab types (cotton and nylon flocked swab) when processed using three QIAGEN extraction methods. J Forensic Sci, 2012, 57(3): 713-717.
7. Zou L, Ruan F, Huang M, et al. SARS-CoV-2 viral load in upper respiratory specimens of infected patients. N Engl J Med, 2020 Feb 19. [Epub ahead of print] https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMc2001737.
8. Hernes SS, Quarsten H, Hagen E, et al. Swabbing for respiratory viral infections in older patients: a comparison of rayon and nylon flocked swabs. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis, 2011, 30(2): 159-165.

Previous Article
新型冠状病毒肺炎一线支援医疗队护理团队建设
Next Article
Clinical characteristics of 96 hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019

Chinese Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

A comparative study of nasal and pharyngeal swabs in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content