Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Sensitivity and Specificity of Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection Using Different Sampling Methods: A Clinical Unicentral Study.
Alonaizan, Faisal; AlHumaid, Jehan; AlJindan, Reem; Bedi, Sumit; Dardas, Heba; Abdulfattah, Dalia; Ashour, Hanadi; AlShahrani, Mohammed; Omar, Omar.
  • Alonaizan F; Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 34212, Saudi Arabia.
  • AlHumaid J; Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 34212, Saudi Arabia.
  • AlJindan R; Department of Microbiology, College of Medicine, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 34212, Saudi Arabia.
  • Bedi S; Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 34212, Saudi Arabia.
  • Dardas H; Emergency Department, King Fahad University Hospital, Al Khobar 34445, Saudi Arabia.
  • Abdulfattah D; Clinical Nursing Supervisor Operating Room, King Fahad University Hospital, Al Khobar 34445, Saudi Arabia.
  • Ashour H; College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 34212, Saudi Arabia.
  • AlShahrani M; Department of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 34212, Saudi Arabia.
  • Omar O; Department of Biomedical Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 34212, Saudi Arabia.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(11)2022 06 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1884130
ABSTRACT
Rapid antigen detection of SARS-CoV-2 has been widely used. However, there is no consensus on the best sampling method. This study aimed to determine the level of agreement between SARS-CoV-2 fluorescent detection and a real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), using different swab methods. Fifty COVID-19 and twenty-six healthy patients were confirmed via rRT-PCR, and each patient was sampled via four swab

methods:

oropharyngeal (O), nasal (N), spit saliva (S), and combined O/N/S swabs. Each swab was analyzed using an immunofluorescent Quidel system. The combined O/N/S swab provided the highest sensitivity (86%; Kappa = 0.8), followed by nasal (76%; Kappa = 0.68), whereas the saliva revealed the lowest sensitivity (66%; kappa = 0.57). Further, when considering positive detection in any of the O, N, and S samples, excellent agreements with rRT-PCR were achieved (Kappa = 0.91 and 0.97, respectively). Finally, among multiple factors, only patient age revealed a significant negative association with antigenic detection in the saliva. It is concluded that immunofluorescent detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen is a reliable method for rapid diagnosis under circumstances where at least two swabs, one nasal and one oropharyngeal, are analyzed. Alternatively, a single combined O/N/S swab would improve the sensitivity in contrast to each site swabbed alone.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 Type of study: Diagnostic study / Prognostic study Limits: Humans Language: English Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Ijerph19116836

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 Type of study: Diagnostic study / Prognostic study Limits: Humans Language: English Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Ijerph19116836