RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in children: accuracy of nasopharyngeal swab compared to nasopharyngeal aspirate
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.08.20.20178012
DO 10.1101/2020.08.20.20178012
A1 Di Pietro, Giada Maria
A1 Capecchi, Ester
A1 Luconi, Ester
A1 Lunghi, Giovanna
A1 Bosis, Samantha
A1 Bertolozzi, Giuseppe
A1 Cantoni, Barbara
A1 Marano, Giuseppe
A1 Boracchi, Patrizia
A1 Biganzoli, Elia
A1 Castaldi, Silvana
A1 Marchisio, Paola
A1 ,
A1 Gori, Andrea
A1 Agostoni, Carlo
A1 Pinzani, Raffaella
A1 Ceriotti, Ferruccio
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/25/2020.08.20.20178012.abstract
AB The tests currently used for the direct identification of SARS-CoV-2 include specimens taken from upper and lower respiratory tract; recommendations from Word Health Organization prioritise nasopharyngeal swab (NS). In literature there are not available paediatric studies about the identification of SARS-CoV-2 through nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA), but the use of NPA is deemed to be better than NS to identify respiratory viruses in children. The aim of our study is to evaluate diagnostic performances of NS compared to NPA for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in children. We collected 300 paired samples (NS and NPA) from children hospitalized and followed up in our paediatric unit. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity of NS referred to NPA of the whole sample and then, considering both the age (≥ and < 6 years old) and the period of collection (March vs follow up) as covariates in different analysis. The NS has a low sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2 in children when referred to NPA; whereas its specificity results high. In children under 6 years of age, our results suggest to prefer the collection of NS, whenever possible. Though statistically not significant, the sensitivity of NS becomes higher if it is performed before NPA.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo fundingAuthor 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:Comitato Etico Milano Area 2 Approval 370_2020All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as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.YesAll data referred to in the manuscript are available