According to US media, early and accurate detection is essential to prevent the spread of new coronavirus and provide appropriate care for patients, according to US media. Currently, nasopharyngeal swabs – which need to be inserted into the nasal cavity to collect samples from the back of the nose and throat – are the gold standard for collecting samples for diagnosis. However, this process is technically difficult, which often makes patients feel uncomfortable and needs personal protective equipment that may be in short supply. Other methods of sample collection – including oropharyngeal swabs and sputum collection – have also been tested in a number of small studies, but it is not clear which method is most suitable for the detection of the new coronavirus.
according to the US daily science website on July 24, in a new study published in the British Journal e biomedicine, researchers from Brigham maternity hospital conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, and compared the three methods by analyzing data from more than 3000 samples. The team found that the success rate of detecting NCV RNA by sputum test was significantly higher than that by oropharyngeal swab detection.
Jonathan Li, the author of the study and a doctor of infectious diseases at Brigham maternity hospital, said: “our gold standard in and out of hospitals is nasopharyngeal swabs, but there are still a lot of confusion about which sampling method is the best and most sensitive. Novel coronavirus pneumonia is significantly increased novel coronavirus pneumonia is detected by sputum test. It is also a support for the detection of this disease as a very important method for the diagnosis and monitoring of new crown pneumonia.
a team of Li and his colleagues examined the positive detection rate of each collection method. The detection rate of nasopharyngeal swab, oropharynx swab and sputum was 54%, 43% and 71%, respectively. The detection rate of sputum was significantly higher than that of oropharyngeal swab or nasopharynx swab. Within a week after the symptoms appeared, the detection rate of all three collection methods was high.