Clinical validation of 3D-printed nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR
Riis, A. G.; Rossland, T. M.; Löhr, I. H.; Dalen, I.; Kleppe, L. K.; Sundal, J.; Berg, A.; Vadla, M. S.; Lenning, O. B.; Syre, H.
Show abstract
Due to limited access to commercially available flocked nasopharyngeal (NP) and oropharyngeal (OP) swabs during the SARS-COV-2 pandemic, we have evaluated the sensitivity of 3D-printed swabs compared to commercial swabs in a clinical setting. We included 35 subjects with known exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Participants were tested with commercial and prototype NP/OP swab pairs 8 and 22 days after exposure. At day 8, the sensitivity of the prototype was 96% for NP-samples (CI 81-99%) and 91% for OP-samples (CI 72-97%). The sensitivity of the commercial swab was 92% for NP-samples (CI 76-98%) and 91% for OP-samples (CI 72-97%). At day 22, the sensitivities of the commercial swab were 100% for NP-samples (CI 82-100%) and OP-samples (CI 77-100%), whereas sensitivity of the prototype was 61% for NP-samples (CI 39-80%) and 54% for OP-samples (CI 29-77%). In conclusion, the prototype might be an alternative to commercial swabs when used early in the course of infection.
Matching journals
The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Diagnostic accuracy of two commercial SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-detecting rapid tests at the point of care in community-based testing centers 97%
- Laboratory and field evaluation of the STANDARD Q and Panbio™ SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid test in Namibia using nasopharyngeal samples 96%
- Performance Evaluation Of A SARS-COV-2 Rapid Antigentest: Test Performance In The Community In The Netherlands 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- SARS-CoV-2 patient self-testing with an antigen-detecting rapid test: a head-to-head comparison with professional testing 97%
- Evaluation of three rapid lateral flow antigen detection tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection 97%
- Direct comparison of clinical diagnostic sensitivity of saliva from buccal swabs versus combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 Omicron 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation and modelling of the performance of an automated SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay according to sample type, target population and epidemic trends 96%
- Evaluation of commercial qPCR kits for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in pooled samples 95%
- Feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 screening in educational settings and children aged < 12 years 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical evaluation of the Roche/SD Biosensor rapid antigen test with symptomatic, non-hospitalized patients in a municipal health service drive-through testing site 97%
- Diagnostic accuracy of three mpox lateral flow assays for antigen detection in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the United Kingdom 94%
- Large-scale screening of asymptomatic for SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and rapid P.1 takeover, Curitiba, Brazil 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Self-collected oral, nasal and saliva samples yield sensitivity comparable to professional-collected oro-nasopharyngeal swabs in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis 97%
- Performance of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test compared with real-time RT-PCR in asymptomatic individuals 95%
- Validation and implementation of a direct RT-qPCR method for rapid screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection by using non-invasive saliva samples 95%
"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.