Back

Diagnostic accuracy and acceptability of self- and health worker-collected tongue swabs for Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex detection in adults in South Africa

David, A.; Baik, Y.; Scott, L.; Kubeka, G.; Benoit, A.; Singh, L.; da Silva, P.; Stevens, W.; Bisson, G. P.; Charalambous, S.

2026-07-06 infectious diseases
10.64898/2026.07.04.26357275 medRxiv
Show abstract

Tongue swabs (TSs) are a non invasive specimen type for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC) and can expand access to testing for individuals unable to produce sputum. This study evaluated the diagnostic performance and user acceptability of self collected and health worker (HW) collected tongue swabs using the Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra) assay and assessed participant perspectives on self collection. In this prospective, cross sectional study, symptomatic and asymptomatic adults under investigation for TB were enrolled from a high HIV prevalence setting. Each participant provided both a self collected and a HW collected TS, which were tested using Ultra. Ultra TS results were compared to liquid culture as the reference standard and sputum Ultra as a comparator. Participant perspectives on self collection were captured via questionnaires. Sensitivity on Ultra for both self and HW collected TSs was 68% (95% CI:51.9 to 81.9), compared to liquid culture. This sensitivity was significantly higher than that of sputum smear microscopy (46%, 95% CI: 30.7 to 62.6; McNemar's p = 0.003). Tongue swab sensitivity was lower than sputum Ultra (80.5%; p<0.001) and decreased with low bacillary loads. Importantly, TSs enabled MTBC detection in six participants unable to produce sputum. Most participants (>90%) found self collection instructions easy to follow, reporting high confidence and comfort, and trust in results from self collected TSs. This study demonstrates that self collected TSs perform comparably to those collected by health workers for TB detection using Ultra and are both feasible and acceptable in a high TB/HIV burden setting. To maximize impact, clear training instructions and robust linkage to care remain critical priorities.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
18.6%
2
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 20%
8.9%
3
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
130 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
5.5%
4
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 4%
5.5%
5
Clinical Infectious Diseases
235 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
5.2%
6
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
142 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.9%
7
Microbiology Spectrum
469 papers in training set
Top 3%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
8
Journal of Infection
78 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.2%
9
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
129 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.8%
10
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
202 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
11
BMJ Global Health
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
12
Wellcome Open Research
67 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.4%
13
Journal of Medical Microbiology
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
14
Emerging Infectious Diseases
105 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.1%
15
BMC Infectious Diseases
133 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
16
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
17
Tropical Medicine & International Health
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
18
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
35 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
19
Thorax
35 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
20
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
73 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.1%
21
Sexually Transmitted Infections
23 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
22
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
466 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
23
Journal of Clinical Virology
63 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
24
Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
25
The Lancet Microbe
44 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
26
eClinicalMedicine
77 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
27
Microbial Genomics
225 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
28
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 59%
0.6%
29
European Respiratory Journal
59 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%