Self-Collected versus Healthcare Worker-Collected Swabs in the Diagnosis of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Self-Collected versus Healthcare Worker-Collected Swabs in the Diagnosis of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2. / Therchilsen, Johan H.; von Buchwald, Christian; Koch, Anders; Nielsen, Susanne Dam; Rasmussen, Daniel B.; Thudium, Rebekka Faber; Kirkby, Nikolai S.; Raaschou-Pedersen, Daniel E.T.; Bundgaard, Johan S.; Iversen, Kasper; Bundgaard, Henning; Todsen, Tobias.
In: Diagnostics, Vol. 10, No. 9, 678, 2020.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Self-Collected versus Healthcare Worker-Collected Swabs in the Diagnosis of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2
AU - Therchilsen, Johan H.
AU - von Buchwald, Christian
AU - Koch, Anders
AU - Nielsen, Susanne Dam
AU - Rasmussen, Daniel B.
AU - Thudium, Rebekka Faber
AU - Kirkby, Nikolai S.
AU - Raaschou-Pedersen, Daniel E.T.
AU - Bundgaard, Johan S.
AU - Iversen, Kasper
AU - Bundgaard, Henning
AU - Todsen, Tobias
PY - 2020
Y1 - 2020
N2 - The aim of this study was to compare the sensitivity of self-collected versus healthcare worker (HCW)-collected swabs for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing. Symptomatic individuals referred for SARS-CoV-2 testing were invited to provide mobile-phone video-instructed self-collected oropharyngeal and nasal samples followed by a HCW-collected oropharyngeal sample. All samples were sent for analysis to the same microbiology laboratory, and the number of SARS-CoV-2-positive participants in the two tests was compared. A total of 109 participants were included, and 19 participants had SARS-CoV-2-positive results. The diagnostic sensitivity of the self-collected and HCW-collected swabs was 84.2% and 89.5%, respectively, with an acceptable agreement, Cohens kappa 0.82, p < 0.001. Further, results from a questionnaire answered by the participants found that loss of smell as a self-reported symptom was a strong predictor for a SARS-CoV-2-positive test. In conclusion, we found that self-collected oropharyngeal and nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing can be reliable compared to HCW-collected oropharyngeal samples.
AB - The aim of this study was to compare the sensitivity of self-collected versus healthcare worker (HCW)-collected swabs for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing. Symptomatic individuals referred for SARS-CoV-2 testing were invited to provide mobile-phone video-instructed self-collected oropharyngeal and nasal samples followed by a HCW-collected oropharyngeal sample. All samples were sent for analysis to the same microbiology laboratory, and the number of SARS-CoV-2-positive participants in the two tests was compared. A total of 109 participants were included, and 19 participants had SARS-CoV-2-positive results. The diagnostic sensitivity of the self-collected and HCW-collected swabs was 84.2% and 89.5%, respectively, with an acceptable agreement, Cohens kappa 0.82, p < 0.001. Further, results from a questionnaire answered by the participants found that loss of smell as a self-reported symptom was a strong predictor for a SARS-CoV-2-positive test. In conclusion, we found that self-collected oropharyngeal and nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing can be reliable compared to HCW-collected oropharyngeal samples.
KW - COVID-19
KW - COVID-19 diagnostic testing
KW - Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
U2 - 10.3390/diagnostics10090678
DO - 10.3390/diagnostics10090678
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 32916801
AN - SCOPUS:85090858275
VL - 10
JO - Diagnostics
JF - Diagnostics
SN - 2075-4418
IS - 9
M1 - 678
ER -
ID: 250009545