Selected article for: "control sample and internal control"
Author: Anne Louise Wyllie; John Fournier; Arnau Casanovas-Massana; Melissa Campbell; Maria Tokuyama; Pavithra Vijayakumar; Bertie Geng; M. Catherine Muenker; Adam J. Moore; Chantal B. F. Vogels; Mary E. Petrone; Isabel M. Ott; Peiwen Lu; Alice Lu-Culligan; Jonathan Klein; Arvind Venkataraman; Rebecca Earnest; Michael Simonov; Rupak Datta; Ryan Handoko; Nida Naushad; Lorenzo R. Sewanan; Jordan Valdez; Elizabeth B. White; Sarah Lapidus; Chaney C. Kalinich; Xiaodong Jiang; Daniel J. Kim; Eriko Kudo; Melissa Linehan; Tianyang Mao; Miyu Moriyama; Ji Eun Oh; Annsea Park; Julio Silva; Eric Song; Takehiro Takahashi; Manabu Taura; Orr-El Weizman; Patrick Wong; Yexin Yang; Santos Bermejo; Camila Odio; Saad B. Omer; Charles S. Dela Cruz; Shelli Farhadian; Richard A. Martinello; Akiko Iwasaki; Nathan D. Grubaugh; Albert I. Ko
Title: Saliva is more sensitive for SARS-CoV-2 detection in COVID-19 patients than nasopharyngeal swabs
  • Document date: 2020_4_22
    • ID: lt7qsxxh_12
    Snippet: Our limited data supports that saliva may be more sensitive for detecting asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic infections; however, a larger sample size is needed to confirm. As nasopharyngeal swab sampling inconsistency may be one of the potential issues for false negatives ( Fig. 2 ) , monitoring an internal control for proper sample collection, human RNase P, may provide an alternative evaluation technique. While human RNase P detection was better .....
    Document: Our limited data supports that saliva may be more sensitive for detecting asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic infections; however, a larger sample size is needed to confirm. As nasopharyngeal swab sampling inconsistency may be one of the potential issues for false negatives ( Fig. 2 ) , monitoring an internal control for proper sample collection, human RNase P, may provide an alternative evaluation technique. While human RNase P detection was better from saliva in both the inpatient and healthcare worker cohorts ( Fig. 3b ) , this alone may not indicate better virus detection. More importantly, we found that human RNase P detection was more variable from nasopharyngeal swabs collected from inpatients ( p = 0.0001, F test for variances) and self-collected from healthcare workers ( p = 0.0002; Fig. 3b ). Our results suggest that saliva may also be an appropriate, and perhaps more sensitive, alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs for screening asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections.

    Search related documents:
    Co phrase search for related documents
    • asymptomatic pre symptomatic infection and healthcare worker: 1
    • asymptomatic pre symptomatic infection detect and false negative: 1
    • asymptomatic pre symptomatic SARS infection and false negative: 1
    • evaluation technique and false negative: 1
    • false negative and healthcare inpatient: 1, 2
    • false negative and healthcare worker: 1, 2, 3
    • false negative and human rnase: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
    • false negative and internal control: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
    • healthcare worker and internal control: 1
    • human rnase and internal control: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17