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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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