SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR on self-collected anterior nares swabs or saliva compared with clinician-collected nasopharyngeal swabs--Denver and Atlanta, August--November, 2020
Grace E. Marx,
Sarah E Smith-Jeffcoat,
Brad J. Biggerstaff,
Courtney C. Nawrocki,
Emily A. Travanty,
Sarah E. Totten,
Jesse Chavez-Van De Hey,
Jesse J. Carlson,
Karen A. Wendel,
Alexis W. Burakoff,
Paulina A Rebolledo,
Marcos C. Schechter,
Yun F. Wang,
Brooks L. Moore,
Hany Y. Atallah,
D. Joseph Sexton,
Halie K. Miller,
Rebekah J. Stewart,
Juliana da Silva,
CDPHE COVID-19 Laboratory Response Team,
CDC COVID-19 Response GA-10 Team,
CDC COVID-19 Response Lab Task Force,
Jennifer D. Thomas,
Hannah L. Kirking,
Jacqueline E. Tate,
Sarah E. Rowan
Posted 19 Feb 2021
medRxiv DOI: 10.1101/2021.02.16.21251521
Posted 19 Feb 2021
Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) collected by trained healthcare professionals are the preferred specimen for SARS-CoV-2 testing. Self-collected specimens might decrease patient discomfort, conserve healthcare resources, and be preferred by patients. During August - November 2020, 1,806 adults undergoing SARS-CoV-2 testing in Denver, Colorado and Atlanta, Georgia, provided self-collected anterior nares swabs (ANS) and saliva specimens before NPS collection. Compared to NPS, sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR appeared higher for saliva than for ANS (85% versus 80% in Denver; 67% versus 58% in Atlanta) and higher among participants reporting current symptoms (94% and 87% in Denver; 72% and 62% in Atlanta, for saliva and ANS, respectively) than among those reporting no symptoms (29% and 50% in Denver; 50% and 44% in Atlanta, for saliva and ANS, respectively). Compared to ANS, saliva was more challenging to collect and process. Self-collected saliva and ANS are less sensitive than NPS for SARS-CoV-2 detection; however, they offer practical advantages and might be most useful for currently symptomatic patients.
- Downloaded 217 times
- Download rankings, all-time:
- Site-wide: 110,459
- In infectious diseases: 4,333
- Year to date:
- Site-wide: 18,388
- Since beginning of last month:
- Site-wide: 37,809
Downloads over time
Distribution of downloads per paper, site-wide
- 27 Nov 2020: The website and API now include results pulled from medRxiv as well as bioRxiv.
- 18 Dec 2019: We're pleased to announce PanLingua, a new tool that enables you to search for machine-translated bioRxiv preprints using more than 100 different languages.
- 21 May 2019: PLOS Biology has published a community page about Rxivist.org and its design.
- 10 May 2019: The paper analyzing the Rxivist dataset has been published at eLife.
- 1 Mar 2019: We now have summary statistics about bioRxiv downloads and submissions.
- 8 Feb 2019: Data from Altmetric is now available on the Rxivist details page for every preprint. Look for the "donut" under the download metrics.
- 30 Jan 2019: preLights has featured the Rxivist preprint and written about our findings.
- 22 Jan 2019: Nature just published an article about Rxivist and our data.
- 13 Jan 2019: The Rxivist preprint is live!