Abstract
Background In December 2019, a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infected pneumonia (COVID-19) occurred in Wuhan, China. Diagnostic test based on real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay (qRT-PCR) was the main means of confirmation, and sample collection was mostly throat swabs, which was easy to miss the diagnosis. It is necessary to seek specimen types with higher detection efficiency and accuracy.
Methods Paired specimens of throat swabs and sputum were obtained from 54 cases, and RNA was extracted and tested for 2019-nCoV (equated with SARS-CoV-2) by qRT-PCR assay.
Results The positive rates of 2019-nCoV from sputum specimens and throat swabs were 76.9% and 44.2%, respectively. Sputum specimens showed a significantly higher positive rate than throat swabs in detecting viral nucleic acid using qRT-PCR assay (P=0.001).
Conclusions The detection rates of 2019-nCoV from sputum specimens are significantly higher than throat swabs. We suggest that sputum would benefit for the detection of 2019-nCoV in patients who produce sputum. The results can facilitate the selection of specimens and increase the accuracy of diagnosis.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University Science, Technology and Innovation Seed Fund under Grant znpy2017022.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Chenyao Lin and Jie Xiang are co-first authors; they contributed equally to the work
Data Availability
The original data can be obtained in the manuscript.
