Elsevier

Journal of Clinical Virology

Volume 118, September 2019, Pages 28-35
Journal of Clinical Virology

Review
Self-collected compared with professional-collected swabbing in the diagnosis of influenza in symptomatic individuals: A meta-analysis and assessment of validity

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2019.07.010Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Self-collected swabs are highly acceptable, comfortable and simple.

  • Self-collected swabs are highly accurate in the diagnosis of influenza.

  • Any error from self-collected swabs is insufficient to invalidate potential studies.

  • Our findings support the use of self-swabbing in vaccine trials.

Abstract

Self-collected nasal swabs offer a cheaper alternative to professional-collected swabs for influenza testing. However, the diagnostic accuracy of self-collection has not been quantitatively reviewed. We identified 14 studies that compared diagnostic accuracy of self-collected to professional-collected swabs in influenza symptomatic individuals. Self-collected swabs were found to be highly acceptable, simple and comfortable to use. Data from nine studies were meta-analyzed.

Pooled sensitivity was 87% (95% CI: 80%, 92%) and specificity was 99% (95% CI: 98%, 100%), compared to professional-collected swabs in the diagnosis of influenza. Pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates were used to assess the potential bias that would be introduced in studies had self-collected rather than professional-collected samples been used. While self-collected swabbing should not replace the role of clinical testing, our findings support the use of self-collected swabs for influenza research and surveillance. This method will be an important tool for evaluating novel influenza vaccines and vaccination strategies.

Introduction

Influenza is an acute respiratory virus, estimated to infect between 5–15% of individuals each year and is subsequently responsible for between 291,243 and 645,832 deaths annually [1]. A laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of influenza is usually made using molecular diagnostic techniques such as reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on samples taken from the nose, throat or nasopharynx [2,3]. Within clinical settings, sample collection is routinely performed by trained staff [3]. In community-based research studies and surveillance, however, where participants are followed for signs and symptoms and tested for influenza outside clinical settings, sample collection can be challenging. Requiring presentation to clinics for sample collection can limit the locations in which a study can be conducted, potentially reducing population generalizability [4], while home visits can substantially increase the costs associated with sample collection [5,6]. In both cases, there may be several days’ delay between symptoms onset and sample collection.

As efforts to improve influenza vaccines intensify [7] opportunities for improving the economy of community-based trials and observational studies without harming internal validity need to be identified. Self-collected nasal swabs offer an alternative means of sample collection that can potentially reduce the costs associated with diagnosis and allow sampling sooner after illness onset. Indeed, self-sampling has previously been demonstrated to be a cost-effective means of detection for sexually transmitted infections and bacterial upper respiratory tract infections [8,9].

Currently-recommended sampling techniques are not conducive to self-collection. Although nasopharyngeal/nasal wash aspirates and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs are considered the optimal sampling technique for the confirmation of influenza [3,10,11], neither is reliably self-collected; they cause discomfort and usually require formal training. Nasal swabs, for example mid-turbinate swabs, are far simpler to collect and sample quality is non-inferior to both nasal wash aspirates [[12], [13], [14]] and NP swabs [11,15]. Self-collected nasal swabs can provide viable specimens for viral detection [[14], [15], [16]] and this has been the sole specimen collection method used in some studies [17,18]. Nevertheless, the diagnostic accuracy of the methodology has only been qualitatively assessed [5]. The objective of this study was to provide a quantitative assessment of the diagnostic accuracy of self-collected versus professional-collected swabs in symptomatic individuals. Further, we aimed to estimate the impact of measurement error associated with self-collection on study findings by applying our pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity to surveillance-derived prevalence estimates, and measures of association using publicly-available data from an influenza vaccine efficacy trial [19].

Section snippets

Search strategy

Medline, Embase and Scopus (Web of Science) were searched up to the 30th of January 2018, and updated on 6th of August 2018. A search strategy was developed in consultation with a biomedical librarian, using the following search terms:

  • 1

    self* OR person* OR individual* OR parent*

  • 2

    swab* OR sample* OR collect* OR take*

  • 3

    nose* OR nasal* OR respira*

  • 4

    influenza* OR vir*

  • 5

    1 adj 2 AND 3 AND 4

In accordance with Cochrane recommendations for conducting reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies [20], no restrictions

Systematic review

Findings of our search are presented in Fig. 1. From 283 retrieved articles, 13 met eligibility criteria, including 12 published articles and one conference poster. One further article [29] was identified from reference lists of full-text screened studies (Table 1). All were published between 2009 [31] and 2017 [32], and conducted in three continents: North America [31,[33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]], Europe [29,[39], [40], [41], [42]], and Asia [32,43]. Sample sizes varied from 28 [37] to

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to have systematically reviewed and quantitatively assessed self-collection of respiratory samples for influenza testing, extending our understanding of this technique beyond the previous qualitative review [5]. Our findings suggest that self-collection is highly comparable to professional-collection for diagnosis of influenza in symptomatic individuals, and we have demonstrated that findings from studies using self-collection are probably

Funding

The WHO Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza is supported by the Australian Government Department of Health. LTTT received an Australian Awards Scholarship, and acknowledges the support of the Australian Government.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Christopher P. Seaman: Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization. Luong Thi Tuyet Tran: Validation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Benjamin J. Cowling: Validation, Writing - review & editing, Supervision. Sheena G. Sullivan: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization, Supervision.

Declaration of Competing Interest

BJC has received honoraria from Sanofi and Roche. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References (47)

  • E.J. Erbelding et al.

    A universal influenza vaccine: the strategic plan for the national institute of allergy and infectious diseases

    J. Infect. Dis.

    (2018)
  • S.M. Garland et al.

    Diagnosis of sexually transmitted infections (STI) using self-collected non-invasive specimens

    Sex. Health

    (2004)
  • A.L. Coughtrie et al.

    Evaluation of swabbing methods for estimating the prevalence of bacterial carriage in the upper respiratory tract: a cross sectional study

    BMJ Open

    (2014)
  • C.C. Ginocchio et al.

    Current best practices for respiratory virus testing

    J. Clin. Microbiol.

    (2011)
  • M.S. Forman et al.

    Specimen collection, transport, and processing: virology

    Man Clin Microbiol

    (2011)
  • S. Lambert et al.

    Comparing nose-throat swabs and nasopharyngeal aspirates collected from children with symptoms for respiratory virus identification using real-time polymerase chain reaction

    Pediatrics

    (2008)
  • A. Abu-Diab et al.

    Comparison between pernasal flocked swabs and nasopharyngeal aspirates for detection of common respiratory viruses in samples from children

    J. Clin. Microbiol.

    (2008)
  • T. Heikkinen et al.

    Nasal swab versus nasopharyngeal aspirate for isolation of respiratory viruses

    J. Clin. Microbiol.

    (2002)
  • M. Smieja et al.

    Development and evaluation of a flocked nasal midturbinate swab for self-collection in respiratory virus infection diagnostic testing

    J. Clin. Microbiol.

    (2010)
  • B.W. Frazee et al.

    Accuracy and discomfort of different types of intranasal specimen collection methods for molecular influenza testing in emergency department patients

    Ann. Emerg. Med.

    (2018)
  • J.P. Li-Kim-Moy et al.

    Influenza vaccine efficacy in young children attending childcare: a randomised controlled trial

    J. Paediatr. Child Health

    (2017)
  • S.B. Lambert et al.

    The cost of community-managed viral respiratory illnesses in a cohort of healthy preschool-aged children

    Respir. Res.

    (2008)
  • B. Cowling

    Hong Kong Vaccination Study: Main Study Data

    (2018)
  • Cited by (41)

    • Self-collected gargle fluids and nasopharyngeal swabs as a strategy for molecular diagnostics of respiratory viruses

      2022, Journal of Clinical Virology Plus
      Citation Excerpt :

      Previous studies also instructed participants in-person how to self-swab [8,11,12], yet providing literate participants with written sampling instructions might suffice (this study, and [9]), thus reducing the need for involvement of HCW. Furthermore, omitting the necessity for HCW to collect swabs can reduce the time from symptom onset to test [10,13], which is important to diagnose the viral etiology as highest sensitivity is found if patients are sampled within the first three to seven days after symptom onset [17–19]. Self-collection allows participants to collect respiratory samples at their convenience.

    • Pandemic driven innovation: A pilot evaluation of an alternative respiratory pathogen collection device

      2022, American Journal of Emergency Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      The nasopharyngeal (NP) swab is the standard collection method for SARS-CoV-2 [4], due to data suggesting a higher viral concentration in the nasal cavity [5]. However, the literature suggests lower patient acceptance of the NP swab collection method [6] with procedural discomfort contributing to the low acceptance rate [7]. The NP swab collection procedure is traumatizing for patients as it requires deep probing of the posterior nasopharynx with a stiff swab applicator.

    • Influenza vaccine effectiveness within prospective cohorts of healthcare personnel in Israel and Peru 2016–2019

      2021, Vaccine
      Citation Excerpt :

      ARFI was defined as one or more of the following symptoms: cough, runny nose, body aches, or feverishness. Respiratory specimens from self-collected mid-turbinate nasal swabs [16,17] were tested by rRT-PCR assay on site-specific platforms, as previously described [14,15], after annual completion of US CDC proficiency panels and certification by laboratory science advisors at CDC (VIP-Peru) or University of Michigan (SHIRI-Israel). Viruses that contributed ≥ 50% of diagnosed viruses in a season were described as predominant; viruses that contributed 20–49% were described as prominent [18].

    • Accuracy and Acceptance of a Self-Collection Model for Respiratory Tract Infection Diagnostics: A Concise Clinical Literature Review

      2021, Journal of Emergency Nursing
      Citation Excerpt :

      Although the self-collection research for respiratory viruses has been somewhat inconsistent,22,23 the results are promising, nonetheless. Studies evaluating alternative collection techniques such as the nasal or oropharyngeal swab methods demonstrated similar diagnostic outcomes to the nasopharyngeal swab but with stronger patient acceptance.7,19 Furthermore, in their recent update, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention endorsed in 2020 both the nasal and oropharyngeal swab methods as acceptable sources for COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Present address: Burnet Institute, Melbourne 3004 Australia; School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne 3004, Australia.

    View full text