RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Nasopharyngeal aspirates vs. nasal swabs for the detection of respiratory pathogens: results of a rapid review protocol
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.10.21.20216077
DO 10.1101/2020.10.21.20216077
A1 Flynn, Matthew F.
A1 Kelly, Martin
A1 Dooley, James S.
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/23/2020.10.21.20216077.abstract
AB 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 StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialCRD42020189577Funding StatementNo part of this work was supported by funds from any external institutions.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe 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.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAdditional data such as search terms and protocol can be accessed on PROSPERO https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ reference number CRD42020189577PRISMAPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-AnalysesQUADAS-2Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies -2(RT-)(q-)PCR(Reverse Transcriptase)(quantitative)Polymerase Chain ReactionSARS(-CoV-19)Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome(–coronavirus-2019)DIFDirect ImmunoflourescenceNPSNasopharyngeal SwabNTLNaso-tragal LengthNANasal AspirationNWNasal WashPROSPEROInternational prospective register of systematic reviewsWHOWorld Health OrganisationRayyan QCRIRayyan Qatar Computing Research InstituteNPNasopharyngealRevManReview Manager16S-RNA16S - Ribonucleic Acid