Selected article for: "acute respiratory syndrome and negative rate"
Author: Lai, Tianwen; Xiang, Fangfei; Zeng, Jianfeng; Huang, Yingzi; Jia, Liping; Chen, Hui; Wu, Jiayuan; Xie, Jianfeng; Liu, Shuna; Deng, Wei; Zheng, Weiqiang; Huang, Yang; Zhang, Qinfu; Luo, Qingfeng; Mo, Fan; Long, Lieming; Zhang, Wuying; Chen, Wenna; Han, Huanqin
Title: Reliability of induced sputum test is greater than that of throat swab test for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19: A multi-center cross-sectional study
  • Cord-id: 3hb99vny
  • Document date: 2020_10_19
    • ID: 3hb99vny
    Snippet: We previously reported that sputum induction was more sensitive than throat swabs for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in two convalescent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients; however, the value and safety of induced sputum testing require further study. We conducted a prospective multi-center cross-sectional study to compare induced sputum to throat swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Confirmed COVID-19 patients from six hospitals in six cities
    Document: We previously reported that sputum induction was more sensitive than throat swabs for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in two convalescent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients; however, the value and safety of induced sputum testing require further study. We conducted a prospective multi-center cross-sectional study to compare induced sputum to throat swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Confirmed COVID-19 patients from six hospitals in six cities across China who received one or more negative RT-PCR result for SARS-CoV-2 were enrolled, and paired specimens (induced sputum and throat swabs; 56 cases) were assayed. In three paired samples, both the induced sputum and throat swabs were positive for SARS-CoV-2. The positive rate for induced sputum was significantly higher than for throat swabs both overall (28.6% vs 5.4%, respectively; p < 0.01). Patients were divided according to time span from onset of illness to sample collection into the more-than-30-day (n = 26) and less-than-30-day (n = 30) groups. The positive rate for induced sputum was also significantly higher than for throat swabs in the less-than-30-day group (53.3% vs 10.0%, respectively; p < 0.001). For the more-than-30-day group, all paired samples were negative for SARS-CoV-2. Blood oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, and heart rate remained stable during sputum induction and no staff were infected. Because induced sputum is more reliable and has a lower false-negative rate than throat swabs, we believe induced sputum is more useful for the confirmation of COVID-19 and is safer as a criterion for release from quarantine.

    Search related documents:
    Co phrase search for related documents
    • acute respiratory syndrome and low respiratory: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
    • acute respiratory syndrome and low respiratory tract: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
    • acute respiratory syndrome and low sputum: 1
    • acute respiratory syndrome and low sputum production: 1
    • acute respiratory syndrome and lung disease: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
    • acute respiratory syndrome and lymphocytopenia laboratory finding: 1
    • lopinavir ritonavir and low respiratory: 1, 2
    • lopinavir ritonavir and low respiratory tract: 1
    • lopinavir ritonavir and low sputum: 1
    • lopinavir ritonavir and lung disease: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
    • low respiratory and lung disease: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
    • low respiratory tract and lung disease: 1, 2, 3
    • low sputum and lung disease: 1