Abstract
Background Nasal pathogen detection sensitivities are often as low as 70% despite advances in molecular diagnostics. It has been suggested that this is linked, in part, to the choice of sampling method.
Methods A diagnostic test accuracy review for sensitivity, using recently developed Cochrane methods for conducting rapid reviews, and the PRISMA protocol was undertaken, with QUADAS-2 risk of bias assessments and meta-analysis of included studies. Sensitivities were calculated by a consensus standard of positivity by either method as the gold standard. Insufficient and/or inaccurate, cross sectional or anatomical site pooling methodologies were excluded.
Results Of 13 included studies, 8 had ‘high’ risk of bias, and 5 had ‘high’ applicability concerns. There were no statistical differences in pooled sensitivities between collection methods for 8 different viruses, and neither with use of PCR, Immunofluorescence nor culture. In a single study, Influenza H1N1 favoured nasopharyngeal swabs, with aspirates having 93.3% of the sensitivity of swabs (p>0.001). Similar equivocal sensitivities were noticed in detecting bacteria.
Conclusions The chain of sampling, from anatomical site to laboratory results, features different potential foci along which sensitivity may be lost. A sufficient body of evidence exists that use of a different sampling method will not yield more respiratory pathogens. The new Cochrane Rapid Reviews guidance helped rapidly answer this relevant and timely clinical question.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
CRD42020189577
Funding Statement
No part of this work was supported by funds from any external institutions.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Discussed with Ulster University Research Governance Committee and not deemed necessary to undertake ethical review.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Flynn-m5{at}ulster.ac.uk
Data Availability
Additional data such as search terms and protocol can be accessed on PROSPERO https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ reference number CRD42020189577
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
- PRISMA
- Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
- QUADAS-2
- Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies -2
- (RT-)(q-)PCR
- (Reverse Transcriptase)(quantitative)Polymerase Chain Reaction
- SARS(-CoV-19)
- Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome(–coronavirus-2019)
- DIF
- Direct Immunoflourescence
- NPS
- Nasopharyngeal Swab
- NTL
- Naso-tragal Length
- NA
- Nasal Aspiration
- NW
- Nasal Wash
- PROSPERO
- International prospective register of systematic reviews
- WHO
- World Health Organisation
- Rayyan QCRI
- Rayyan Qatar Computing Research Institute
- NP
- Nasopharyngeal
- RevMan
- Review Manager
- 16S-RNA
- 16S - Ribonucleic Acid
