Microscopic Review of Nasopharyngeal Swabs as a Means of Benchside Quality Assurance
Matelski, A. T.; Siddique, N. I.; Mead, P.; Raimondi, T.; Jorgenson, L. C.; Calderon, O.; Harman, K.; Farrell, J. J.
Show abstract
Nasopharygneal swabs (NPS) are the collection modality recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for SARS-CoV2. NPS gather both extracellular material and human respiratory epithelial cells and, when used with RT-PCR, have reliable sensitivity for detection of viral infection. However, at our institution, we identified a 1.7% re-order rate within 7-days for NPS for respiratory pathogen RT-PCR, which we hypothesize may be due to low confidence in adequate sample collection. We sought to identify an inexpensive and accessible strategy for benchside quality assurance of NPS adequacy by observing microscopic content of viral transport media. For 801 NPS samples collected in November 2019, we air-dried and safranin-stained aliquots of viral transport media on glass slides. We then counted morphologically distinct ciliated columnar epithelial cells (CCEs). 19% of samples negative by RT-PCR for respiratory pathogens had no CCEs, while just 6% of positive samples exhibited the same. Pearsons Chi-squared test was used to compare presence of CCEs between samples that were positive and negative for respiratory pathogens by RT-PCR (p=3.3x10-38). The negative predictive value (NPV) of finding no identifiable CCEs on microscopy was 85%. We posit that samples without identifiable CCEs may have been inadequately collected. The basic, benchside protocol using inexpensive laboratory reagents that we describe here could help improve accuracy and accessibility of NPS and RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV2 and other respiratory pathogens while conserving limited resources in the face of a pandemic.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection in gargle, spit and sputum specimens 94%
- Performance of the Cue COVID-19 Molecular Test for Point of Care: Insights from a multi-site clinic service model 93%
- Investigating sensitivity of nasal or throat (ISNOT): A combination of both swabs increases sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparable specimen collection from both ends of at-home mid-turbinate swabs 94%
- Self-Collected Anterior Nasal and Saliva Specimens versus Healthcare Worker-Collected Nasopharyngeal Swabs for the Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2 93%
- Performance of Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 rapid nucleic acid amplification test in nasopharyngeal swabs transported in viral media and dry nasal swabs, in a New York City academic institution 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Combined oropharyngeal/nares and nasopharyngeal swab sampling remain effective for molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant 94%
- Acceptable Performance of the Abbott ID NOW Among Symptomatic Individuals with Confirmed COVID-19 94%
- Evaluation of sample collection and transport strategies to enhance yield, accessibility, and biosafety of COVID-19 RT-PCR testing 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Aerosolized Hydrogen Peroxide Decontamination of N95 Respirators, with Fit-Testing and Virologic Confirmation of Suitability for Re-Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic 92%
- The Serological Sciences Network (SeroNet) for COVID-19: Depth and Breadth of Serology Assays and Plans for Assay Harmonization 91%
- Impact of temporary storage conditions on the viability of Streptococcus pneumoniae in saliva 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Practical strategies for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing in resource-constrained settings 94%
- Comparative study of four SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT) platforms demonstrates that ID NOW performance is impaired substantially by patient and specimen type. 92%
- Analytical Performance of the AMDI Fast PCR Mini Respiratory Panel 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.