Literature DB >> 28633963

Comparison of gargle samples and throat swab samples for the detection of respiratory pathogens.

Susan Bennett1, Rhona S Davidson2, Rory N Gunson2.   

Abstract

Respiratory illness causes significant morbidity especially in children, the elderly and the immunocompromised. The sample type taken and the quality of that sample are of great significance in providing an accurate diagnosis. Gargle samples are easy to take and sample the same area as a throat swab (THS). In this study, we assessed the utility of gargle samples for the molecular detection of common respiratory infections. Paired gargle and THS samples collected on the same day from the same patient were compared. We also included in our analysis paired THS and gargle samples that were collected within three days of each other as these samples are likely to have been taken during the same illness. Overall the data suggests that gargle samples are a more sensitive sample type than THS samples as overall the diagnostic yield was higher in the gargle samples and the Ct value of the gargle samples was stronger for the majority of samples in comparison to THS samples. Similar data was seen in the paired samples collected within one to three days of each other, as although the diagnostic yield between the sample types was similar (similar discrepant results), the majority of gargles had stronger Ct values than THS samples. This paper highlights the usefulness of gargle samples as non-invasive sensitive respiratory sample in comparison to THS samples. We recommend that other testing sites should consider using gargle samples for respiratory diagnosis as it will bring benefits in terms of sensitivity and sampling ease of use.
Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gargle samples; Molecular diagnosis of respiratory infections; Real-time PCR; Sample type; Throat swabs

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28633963     DOI: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2017.06.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Virol Methods        ISSN: 0166-0934            Impact factor:   2.014


  14 in total

1.  Prevalence of RT-qPCR-detected SARS-CoV-2 infection at schools: First results from the Austrian School-SARS-CoV-2 prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Peter Willeit; Robert Krause; Bernd Lamprecht; Andrea Berghold; Buck Hanson; Evelyn Stelzl; Heribert Stoiber; Johannes Zuber; Robert Heinen; Alwin Köhler; David Bernhard; Wegene Borena; Christian Doppler; Dorothee von Laer; Hannes Schmidt; Johannes Pröll; Ivo Steinmetz; Michael Wagner
Journal:  Lancet Reg Health Eur       Date:  2021-03-23

Review 2.  Tools and Techniques for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)/COVID-19 Detection.

Authors:  Seyed Hamid Safiabadi Tali; Jason J LeBlanc; Zubi Sadiq; Oyejide Damilola Oyewunmi; Carolina Camargo; Bahareh Nikpour; Narges Armanfard; Selena M Sagan; Sana Jahanshahi-Anbuhi
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 26.132

3.  Respiratory sampling for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2: An Overview.

Authors:  Anna See; Song Tar Toh
Journal:  Head Neck       Date:  2020-05-08       Impact factor: 3.147

4.  Gargle lavage as a viable alternative to swab for detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Authors:  Ankit Mittal; Ankesh Gupta; Shiv Kumar; Milan Surjit; Binit Singh; Manish Soneja; Kapil Dev Soni; Adil Rashid Khan; Komal Singh; Shivdas Naik; Arvind Kumar; Richa Aggarwal; Neeraj Nischal; Sanjeev Sinha; Anjan Trikha; Naveet Wig
Journal:  Indian J Med Res       Date:  2020 Jul & Aug       Impact factor: 2.375

5.  Reliable detection of SARS-CoV-2 with patient-collected swabs and saline gargles: A three-headed comparison on multiple molecular platforms.

Authors:  Jason J LeBlanc; Janice Pettipas; Melanie Di Quinzio; Todd F Hatchette; Glenn Patriquin
Journal:  J Virol Methods       Date:  2021-05-23       Impact factor: 2.623

6.  Simple concentration method enables the use of gargle and mouthwash instead of nasopharyngeal swab sampling for the diagnosis of COVID-19 by PCR.

Authors:  Tanil Kocagoz; Ozge Can; Neval Yurttutan Uyar; Ece Aksoy; Tuba Polat; Dilara Cankaya; Betul Karakus; Erkan Mozioglu; Sesin Kocagoz
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2021-08-26       Impact factor: 3.267

7.  Natural spring water gargle and direct RT-PCR for the diagnosis of COVID-19 (COVID-SPRING study).

Authors:  Jeannot Dumaresq; François Coutlée; Philippe J Dufresne; Jean Longtin; Judith Fafard; Julie Bestman-Smith; Marco Bergevin; Emilie Vallières; Marc Desforges; Annie-Claude Labbé
Journal:  J Clin Virol       Date:  2021-10-02       Impact factor: 3.168

8.  Gargle Lavage as a Safe and Sensitive Alternative to Swab Samples to Diagnose COVID-19: A Case Report in Japan.

Authors:  Makoto Saito; Eisuke Adachi; Seiya Yamayoshi; Michiko Koga; Kiyoko Iwatsuki-Horimoto; Yoshihiro Kawaoka; Hiroshi Yotsuyanagi
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2020-07-28       Impact factor: 9.079

9.  Comparison of Self-collected Mouth Gargle with Deep-throat Saliva Samples for the diagnosis of COVID-19: Mouth gargle for diagnosis of COVID-19.

Authors:  Christopher Kc Lai; Grace Cy Lui; Zigui Chen; Yuk-Yam Cheung; Kwok Chu Cheng; Agnes Sy Leung; Rita Wy Ng; Jo Lk Cheung; Apple Cm Yeung; Wendy Cs Ho; Kate C Chan; David Sc Hui; Dominic Nc Tsang; Paul Ks Chan
Journal:  J Infect       Date:  2021-07-25       Impact factor: 6.072

10.  The role of mouthwash sampling in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.

Authors:  Asaf Biber; Dana Lev; Michal Mandelboim; Yaniv Lustig; Geva Harmelin; Amit Shaham; Oran Erster; Eli Schwartz
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2021-08-03       Impact factor: 5.103

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.