Comparison of self-collected oral-nasal and mid-turbinate swabs to healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: a paired clinical evaluation.

Access microbiology Pub Date : 2026-07-15 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1099/acmi.0.001148.v3
Jodi Gilchrist, Kelly Waters, Sarah Marttala, Doris Williams, Kaitlyn Van Deventer, Keltie Baldwin, Alexandria Martindale, David Bulir, Mohammad Rubayet Hasan, Marek Smieja
{"title":"Comparison of self-collected oral-nasal and mid-turbinate swabs to healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: a paired clinical evaluation.","authors":"Jodi Gilchrist, Kelly Waters, Sarah Marttala, Doris Williams, Kaitlyn Van Deventer, Keltie Baldwin, Alexandria Martindale, David Bulir, Mohammad Rubayet Hasan, Marek Smieja","doi":"10.1099/acmi.0.001148.v3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Accurate detection of respiratory viruses is essential for infection control, patient management and public health response. Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), collected by healthcare workers (HWC-NPS), remain the gold standard for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection but require trained personnel and can be uncomfortable for patients. Self-collected swabs, such as oral-nasal swabs (SC-ONS) and mid-turbinate swabs, offer scalable alternatives suitable for mass testing. Previous mid-turbinate swab designs included a plastic stopper and were not compatible with automated laboratory testing. This study compared the performance of (i) SC-ONS, (ii) an automation-friendly, redesigned version of mid-turbinate swab (SC-MTS) and (iii) HWC-NPS in detecting SARS-CoV-2. Between April and June 2022, paired NPS, ONS and MTS samples were collected from 100 participants at a Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) assessment centre in Hamilton, Ontario. Samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse-transcriptase PCR. Compared to HWC-NPS, SC-ONS demonstrated 82.1% sensitivity and 100% specificity, while SC-MTS showed 75.0% sensitivity and 100% specificity. Agreement with HWC-NPS was strong for both SC-ONS (κ=0.863) and SC-MTS (κ=0.804). Agreement between SC-ONS and SC-MTS was nearly perfect (κ=0.944). Cellular material yields as well as SARS-CoV-2 viral loads were lower for self-collected swabs than HWC-NPS, while viral load comparisons revealed no significant difference between SC-ONS and SC-MTS. Our study aligns with previous work demonstrating the use of self-collected mid-turbinate swabs for the detection of respiratory viruses, while also demonstrating the compatibility of the newly designed swabs with automated laboratory instruments. Our results, while conducted in a relatively small sample, suggest that self-collected ONS and MTS are reliable alternatives to HWC-NPS, offering practical, less invasive, automation-friendly options for large-scale respiratory virus surveillance and pandemic preparedness.</p>","PeriodicalId":94366,"journal":{"name":"Access microbiology","volume":"8 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13380853/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Access microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1099/acmi.0.001148.v3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Accurate detection of respiratory viruses is essential for infection control, patient management and public health response. Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), collected by healthcare workers (HWC-NPS), remain the gold standard for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection but require trained personnel and can be uncomfortable for patients. Self-collected swabs, such as oral-nasal swabs (SC-ONS) and mid-turbinate swabs, offer scalable alternatives suitable for mass testing. Previous mid-turbinate swab designs included a plastic stopper and were not compatible with automated laboratory testing. This study compared the performance of (i) SC-ONS, (ii) an automation-friendly, redesigned version of mid-turbinate swab (SC-MTS) and (iii) HWC-NPS in detecting SARS-CoV-2. Between April and June 2022, paired NPS, ONS and MTS samples were collected from 100 participants at a Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) assessment centre in Hamilton, Ontario. Samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse-transcriptase PCR. Compared to HWC-NPS, SC-ONS demonstrated 82.1% sensitivity and 100% specificity, while SC-MTS showed 75.0% sensitivity and 100% specificity. Agreement with HWC-NPS was strong for both SC-ONS (κ=0.863) and SC-MTS (κ=0.804). Agreement between SC-ONS and SC-MTS was nearly perfect (κ=0.944). Cellular material yields as well as SARS-CoV-2 viral loads were lower for self-collected swabs than HWC-NPS, while viral load comparisons revealed no significant difference between SC-ONS and SC-MTS. Our study aligns with previous work demonstrating the use of self-collected mid-turbinate swabs for the detection of respiratory viruses, while also demonstrating the compatibility of the newly designed swabs with automated laboratory instruments. Our results, while conducted in a relatively small sample, suggest that self-collected ONS and MTS are reliable alternatives to HWC-NPS, offering practical, less invasive, automation-friendly options for large-scale respiratory virus surveillance and pandemic preparedness.

自行采集的口鼻和中鼻甲拭子与医护人员采集的鼻咽拭子检测SARS-CoV-2的比较:配对临床评价
呼吸道病毒的准确检测对于感染控制、患者管理和公共卫生应对至关重要。由卫生保健工作者(HWC-NPS)收集的鼻咽拭子(NPS)仍然是检测严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2 (SARS-CoV-2)的金标准,但需要训练有素的人员,并且可能使患者感到不舒服。自行收集的拭子,如口鼻拭子(SC-ONS)和中鼻甲拭子,提供了适合大规模检测的可扩展替代方案。以前的中鼻甲拭子设计包括塑料塞,与自动化实验室测试不兼容。本研究比较了(i) SC-ONS、(ii)自动化友好的重新设计版中鼻甲拭子(SC-MTS)和(iii) HWC-NPS检测SARS-CoV-2的性能。2022年4月至6月期间,在安大略省汉密尔顿的2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)评估中心,从100名参与者中收集了配对的NPS、ONS和MTS样本。用逆转录酶PCR检测样本是否存在SARS-CoV-2。与HWC-NPS相比,SC-ONS的敏感性为82.1%,特异性为100%;SC-MTS的敏感性为75.0%,特异性为100%。SC-ONS (κ=0.863)和SC-MTS (κ=0.804)与HWC-NPS的一致性较强。SC-ONS与SC-MTS的一致性接近完美(κ=0.944)。自收集拭子的细胞物质产量和SARS-CoV-2病毒载量低于HWC-NPS,而病毒载量比较显示SC-ONS和SC-MTS之间无显著差异。我们的研究与先前的工作一致,证明了使用自收集的中鼻甲拭子检测呼吸道病毒,同时也证明了新设计的拭子与自动化实验室仪器的兼容性。我们的研究结果虽然是在相对较小的样本中进行的,但表明自行收集的ONS和MTS是HWC-NPS的可靠替代品,为大规模呼吸道病毒监测和大流行防范提供了实用、侵入性小、自动化友好的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书