Comparative evaluation of swabbing sites for Omicron variant detection in PCR testing
Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease, ISSN: 0732-8893, Vol: 111, Issue: 1, Page: 116577
2025
- 1Citations
- 3Usage
- 1Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations1
- Citation Indexes1
- Usage3
- Downloads2
- Abstract Views1
- Captures1
- Readers1
Article Description
The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 raised concerns about the best sampling sites for PCR testing, with early indications suggesting throat swab samples were better than nasal swab samples. Our study evaluated the sensitivity of detecting SARS-CoV-2 across different swabbing sites. Participants undergoing testing at NHS Test and Trace sites in England provided self-collected samples using nose only, throat only, and combined nose and throat swabs, which were analysed by realtime PCR. Among 815 participants, combined swabs had higher viral concentrations than nose only or throat only swabs. Sensitivity for detecting SARS-CoV-2 by PCR was 91 % for nose only and 97 % for throat only, relative to the combined approach. VC remained stable in nose swabs but declined in throat swabs with time. Combined nose and throat swabbing remains the most effective method for SARS-CoV-2 detection. If a single swab is used, a throat swab has a higher sensitivity than nose swabs, although VC in the throat decreases faster in later infection stages. The variations in VC over time and intra-person variation between sampling sites underscore the complexity of viral dynamics, highlighting the importance of considering both nose and throat samples for comprehensive testing.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732889324004024; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2024.116577; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85207800986&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39481250; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0732889324004024; https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/bhs-research/430; https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1429&context=bhs-research
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know