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 |
_version_ | 1785123382249914368 |
---|---|
author | Chen, Renke Bao, Jiaqi Huang, Xiaojuan Chen, Qianna Huang, Maowen Gao, Min Yu, Fanghao Chen, Jiayao Zou, Weihua Shi, Lumei Chen, Xiao Feng, Bo Wang, Ruonan Feng, Baihuan Zheng, Shufa Yu, Fei |
author_facet | Chen, Renke Bao, Jiaqi Huang, Xiaojuan Chen, Qianna Huang, Maowen Gao, Min Yu, Fanghao Chen, Jiayao Zou, Weihua Shi, Lumei Chen, Xiao Feng, Bo Wang, Ruonan Feng, Baihuan Zheng, Shufa Yu, Fei |
author_sort | Chen, Renke |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10587520 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105875202023-10-21 Comparison of “hock-a-loogie” saliva versus nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for detecting common respiratory pathogens Chen, Renke Bao, Jiaqi Huang, Xiaojuan Chen, Qianna Huang, Maowen Gao, Min Yu, Fanghao Chen, Jiayao Zou, Weihua Shi, Lumei Chen, Xiao Feng, Bo Wang, Ruonan Feng, Baihuan Zheng, Shufa Yu, Fei Heliyon Research Article 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. Elsevier 2023-10-12 /pmc/articles/PMC10587520/ /pubmed/37867842 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20965 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Research Article Chen, Renke Bao, Jiaqi Huang, Xiaojuan Chen, Qianna Huang, Maowen Gao, Min Yu, Fanghao Chen, Jiayao Zou, Weihua Shi, Lumei Chen, Xiao Feng, Bo Wang, Ruonan Feng, Baihuan Zheng, Shufa Yu, Fei Comparison of “hock-a-loogie” saliva versus nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for detecting common respiratory pathogens |
title | Comparison of “hock-a-loogie” saliva versus nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for detecting common respiratory pathogens |
title_full | Comparison of “hock-a-loogie” saliva versus nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for detecting common respiratory pathogens |
title_fullStr | Comparison of “hock-a-loogie” saliva versus nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for detecting common respiratory pathogens |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of “hock-a-loogie” saliva versus nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for detecting common respiratory pathogens |
title_short | Comparison of “hock-a-loogie” saliva versus nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for detecting common respiratory pathogens |
title_sort | comparison of “hock-a-loogie” saliva versus nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for detecting common respiratory pathogens |
topic | Research Article |
url | 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 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chenrenke comparisonofhockaloogiesalivaversusnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsfordetectingcommonrespiratorypathogens AT baojiaqi comparisonofhockaloogiesalivaversusnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsfordetectingcommonrespiratorypathogens AT huangxiaojuan comparisonofhockaloogiesalivaversusnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsfordetectingcommonrespiratorypathogens AT chenqianna comparisonofhockaloogiesalivaversusnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsfordetectingcommonrespiratorypathogens AT huangmaowen comparisonofhockaloogiesalivaversusnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsfordetectingcommonrespiratorypathogens AT gaomin comparisonofhockaloogiesalivaversusnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsfordetectingcommonrespiratorypathogens AT yufanghao comparisonofhockaloogiesalivaversusnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsfordetectingcommonrespiratorypathogens AT chenjiayao comparisonofhockaloogiesalivaversusnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsfordetectingcommonrespiratorypathogens AT zouweihua comparisonofhockaloogiesalivaversusnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsfordetectingcommonrespiratorypathogens AT shilumei comparisonofhockaloogiesalivaversusnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsfordetectingcommonrespiratorypathogens AT chenxiao comparisonofhockaloogiesalivaversusnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsfordetectingcommonrespiratorypathogens AT fengbo comparisonofhockaloogiesalivaversusnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsfordetectingcommonrespiratorypathogens AT wangruonan comparisonofhockaloogiesalivaversusnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsfordetectingcommonrespiratorypathogens AT fengbaihuan comparisonofhockaloogiesalivaversusnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsfordetectingcommonrespiratorypathogens AT zhengshufa comparisonofhockaloogiesalivaversusnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsfordetectingcommonrespiratorypathogens AT yufei comparisonofhockaloogiesalivaversusnasopharyngealandoropharyngealswabsfordetectingcommonrespiratorypathogens |