| People | Locations | Statistics |
|---|---|---|
| Naji, M. |
| |
| Motta, Antonella |
| |
| Aletan, Dirar |
| |
| Mohamed, Tarek |
| |
| Ertürk, Emre |
| |
| Taccardi, Nicola |
| |
| Kononenko, Denys |
| |
| Petrov, R. H. | Madrid |
|
| Alshaaer, Mazen | Brussels |
|
| Bih, L. |
| |
| Casati, R. |
| |
| Muller, Hermance |
| |
| Kočí, Jan | Prague |
|
| Šuljagić, Marija |
| |
| Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-Artemi | Brussels |
|
| Azam, Siraj |
| |
| Ospanova, Alyiya |
| |
| Blanpain, Bart |
| |
| Ali, M. A. |
| |
| Popa, V. |
| |
| Rančić, M. |
| |
| Ollier, Nadège |
| |
| Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro |
| |
| Landes, Michael |
| |
| Rignanese, Gian-Marco |
|
Fowler, Tom
in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%
Topics
Publications (4/4 displayed)
- 2024A self-controlled case series study to measure the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection associated with attendance at sporting and cultural events: the UK Events Research Programme eventscitations
- 2024Self-swabbing versus assisted swabbing for viral detection by qRT-PCR: the experience from SARS-CoV-2 based on a meta-analysis of six prospectively designed evaluations conducted in a UK settingcitations
- 2024The effectiveness and efficiency of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies for patient and healthcare workers within acute NHS hospitals during an omicron-like periodcitations
- 2019Potential for diagnosis of infectious disease from the 100,000 Genomes Project Metagenomic Dataset: Recommendations for reporting resultscitations
Places of action
| Organizations | Location | People |
|---|
article
Self-swabbing versus assisted swabbing for viral detection by qRT-PCR: the experience from SARS-CoV-2 based on a meta-analysis of six prospectively designed evaluations conducted in a UK setting
Abstract
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Purpose</jats:title><jats:p>In April 2020, the UK Government implemented NHS Test and Trace to provide SARS-CoV-2 quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) testing for the public, with nose-and-throat swabbing for samples performed by trained staff. Self-swabbing (SS) would allow rapid scale-up of testing capacity and access. Six studies were undertaken to determine whether SS was as effective for detecting SARS-CoV-2 as swabbing performed by trained staff.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>Six prospective studies were conducted between April–October 2020, using six swab/media combinations. Differences between assisted swabbing (AS) and SS were evaluated for concordance, positivity, sensitivity, cycle threshold (Ct) values and void rates. Statistical analysis was performed using 95% confidence intervals (CIs), paired t-tests and model-based methods.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Overall, 3,253 individuals were recruited (median age 37 years, 49% female), with 2,933 having valid paired qRT-PCR results. Pooled concordance rate was 98% (95% CI: 96%, 99%). Positivity rate differences for SS (8.1%) and AS (8.4%) and differences in pooled sensitivities between SS (86%; 95% CI: 78%, 92%) and AS (91%; 95% CI: 78%, 96%) were nonsignificant. Both types of swabbing led to pooled void rates below 2% and strongly correlated Ct values. Age, sex and previous swabbing experience did not have a significant impact on concordance or sensitivity.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>The UK adopted a policy to promote self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 based on data demonstrating equivalence of SS versus AS. Positive outcomes with SS are likely generalisable to testing for other respiratory pathogens, and we consider self-sampling and self-testing essential for future pandemic preparedness.</jats:p></jats:sec>