Cargando…
Comparison of “hock-a-loogie” saliva versus nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for detecting common respiratory pathogens
Self-collection of saliva samples has attracted considerable attention in recent years, particularly during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. However, studies investigating the detection of other common respiratory pathogens in saliva samples are limited. In this study, nasopharyngeal swabs (NP...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10587520/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37867842 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20965 |
Sumario: | Self-collection of saliva samples has attracted considerable attention in recent years, particularly during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. However, studies investigating the detection of other common respiratory pathogens in saliva samples are limited. In this study, nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), oropharyngeal swabs (OPS), and “hock-a-loogie” saliva (HLS) were collected from 469 patients to detect 13 common respiratory pathogens. Overall positivity rates for NPS (66.1 %), HLS (63.5 %), and OPS (57.8 %) were statistically different (P = 0.028), with an overall concordance of 72.7 %. Additionally, detection rates for NPS (85.9 %) and HLS (83.2 %) for all pathogens were much higher than for OPS (73.3 %). Coronavirus and human rhinovirus were most frequently detected pathogens in NPS (P < 0.001). Mycoplasma pneumoniae was significantly more prevalent in the HLS group (P = 0.008). In conclusion, NPS was a reliable sample type for detecting common respiratory pathogens. HLS was more easily collected and can be used in emergencies or specific conditions. Mixed NPS/OPS and NPS/HLS specimens have the potential to improve detection rates, although OPS testing alone has a relatively high risk for missed detection. |
---|