Today's Clinical Lab - News, Editorial and Products for the Clinical Laboratory
A person wearing personal protective equipment putting a nasal SARS-CoV-2 swab into a tube

At-Home Swabs Are Effective at Diagnosing Infections

A systematic review and meta-analysis shows that at-home swabs are just as accurate as those taken by health care workers

American Society for Microbiology
Published:Feb 02, 2021
|2 min read

Washington, DC—January 28, 202—Self swabs and caregiver swabs are effective at detecting multiple pathogens and are just as accurate as those taken by health care workers, according to a team of Australian researchers. The research appears in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology, a publication of the American Society for Microbiology.

"Across the range of pathogens and swab types, there was high agreement between results from self- or caregiver-collected swabs and those performed by a health care worker, even when different sites were swabbed (e.g., nasopharyngeal vs nasal)," said principal investigator Joshua Osowicki, BMedSci, MBBS, FRACP, a pediatric infectious diseases physician in the Murdoch Children's Research Institute's Tropical Diseases research group, Melbourne, Australia.

"We found a pooled sensitivity of 91 percent and specificity of 98 percent for self- or caregiver-collected upper airway swabs compared to [health care worker] swabs," the investigators wrote. (Sensitivity refers to the proportion of those who test positive that are correctly identified, and specificity the proportion testing negative that are correctly identified.)

"Findings were similar when only SARS-CoV-2 data were considered," the researchers wrote. "This level of diagnostic performance should reassure clinicians, researchers, and public health officials that diagnostic performance is not necessarily compromised by self- or caregiver swabbing."

Related Article: Optimize COVID-19 Sample Accessioning and Processing Workflows

Pathogens swabbed in the study include SARS-CoV-2, influenza, group A Streptococcus, Staphylococcus aureus, pharyngeal Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and a panel of respiratory viruses.

The study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 20 previous studies comprising swabs of more than 3,500 individuals, comparing self- or caregiver-collected swabs with swabs collected by health care workers for diagnosis of a range of upper airway pathogens. "We searched for previous studies that included both kinds of swabs collected from the same individuals," said Osowicki. "For each study, we considered the sensitivity and specificity of self- or caregiver-collected swabs compared to swabs by health care workers, and the agreement between the two kinds of swabs.

Self- and caregiver swabbing offer a number of advantages over swabbing by health care workers, including less likelihood of transmission, reduced expenses, conservation of personal protective equipment, and less discomfort to patients. An online survey of patients with SARS-CoV-2 symptoms found a much higher proportion willing to be tested via a self-collected saliva sample (9 percent) or a nasal swab (88 percent) than by a drive-through health care worker swab collection (71 percent)," according to the investigators.

When the plans of then medical student and first author Dr. Ciara Harrison to complete an immunology laboratory project were derailed by the pandemic, Harrison, now a first-year physician, pivoted to this systematic review and meta-analysis.

- This press release was originally published on the American Society for Microbiology website