SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR on self-collected anterior nares swabs or saliva compared with clinician-collected nasopharyngeal swabs--Denver and Atlanta, August--November, 2020
Marx, G. E.; Smith-Jeffcoat, S. E.; Biggerstaff, B. J.; Koh, M.; Nawrocki, C. C.; Travanty, E. A.; Totten, S. E.; Scott, T.; Chavez-Van De Hey, J.; Carlson, J. J.; Wendel, K. A.; Burakoff, A. W.; Hoffman, A.; Rebolledo, P. A.; Schechter, M. C.; Wang, Y. F.; Moore, B. L.; Atallah, H. Y.; Sexton, D. J.; Hartloge, C.; Paulick, A.; Miller, H. K.; Sleweon, S.; Rosetti, R.; Shragai, T.; O'Laughlin, K.; Stewart, R. J.; da Silva, J.; Biedron, C.; CDPHE COVID-19 Laboratory Response Team, ; CDC COVID-19 Response GA-10 Team, ; CDC COVID-19 Response Lab Task Force, ; Thomas, J. D.; Kirking, H. L.; Tate
Show abstract
Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) collected by trained healthcare professionals are the preferred specimen for SARS-CoV-2 testing. Self-collected specimens might decrease patient discomfort, conserve healthcare resources, and be preferred by patients. During August - November 2020, 1,806 adults undergoing SARS-CoV-2 testing in Denver, Colorado and Atlanta, Georgia, provided self-collected anterior nares swabs (ANS) and saliva specimens before NPS collection. Compared to NPS, sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR appeared higher for saliva than for ANS (85% versus 80% in Denver; 67% versus 58% in Atlanta) and higher among participants reporting current symptoms (94% and 87% in Denver; 72% and 62% in Atlanta, for saliva and ANS, respectively) than among those reporting no symptoms (29% and 50% in Denver; 50% and 44% in Atlanta, for saliva and ANS, respectively). Compared to ANS, saliva was more challenging to collect and process. Self-collected saliva and ANS are less sensitive than NPS for SARS-CoV-2 detection; however, they offer practical advantages and might be most useful for currently symptomatic patients.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Pooled Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Testing 96%
- A multicenter study to assess the performance of the point-of-care RT-PCR Cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B nucleic acid test for use on the Cobas Liat system in comparison with centralized assays across healthcare facilities in the United States 96%
- Performance of saliva specimens for the molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 in the community setting: does sample collection method matter? 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Multi-site clinical validation of Isothermal Amplification based SARS-COV-2 detection assays using different sampling strategies 96%
- Evaluation of the INDICAID™ COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test in symptomatic populations and asymptomatic community testing 95%
- Detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection in gargle, spit and sputum specimens 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical evaluation of the Diagnostic Analyzer for Selective Hybridization (DASH): a point-of-care PCR test for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection 94%
- Performance of the TaqMan™ COVID-19 Pooling Kit for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Asymptomatic and Symptomatic populations at an Institution of Higher Education 94%
- Diagnostic accuracy of two commercial SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-detecting rapid tests at the point of care in community-based testing centers 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Impact of Nasopharyngeal Specimen Quality on SARS-CoV-2 Test Sensitivity 92%
- Acceptability, usability and performance of lateral flow immunoassay tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: REACT-2 study of self-testing in non-healthcare key workers 91%
- Clinical symptoms among ambulatory patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern identifying a cluster of B.1.1.28/P.1 variant in British Columbia, Canada 93%
- The Impact of Frequent SARS-CoV-2 Testing on Weekly Case Rates Among Long-Term Care Facilities in Florida 92%
- Large-scale screening of asymptomatic for SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and rapid P.1 takeover, Curitiba, Brazil 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.