Why the study?
During epidemics or pandemics, tampons without virus transport medium (VTM) would save space and cost, requiring verification of throat swabs without VTM for diagnosing or screening enteroviral infections by PCR.
Does sample collection without virus transport medium provide compatible results to standard VTM for the molecular diagnosis of enteroviral infections in volunteers?
Does sample collection without virus transport medium provide compatible results to standard VTM for the molecular diagnosis of enteroviral infections in volunteers?
Throat swabs without virus transport medium may be a viable, space- and cost-saving alternative for the molecular diagnosis of enteroviral infections.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Immediate dry swab PCR results match VTM swabs; supports hypothesis-generating evaluation for enteroviral screening but should not yet change practice.
Clinical swabs with suspected viral infection are usually transported in virus transport medium (VMT). During epidemics/pandemics, tampons without VTM would be more suitable for saving space and cost. This study was conducted to verify the applicability of throat swabs without VTM in the diagnosis/screening of enteroviral infections by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in a volunteer study group. Three different swab types were used in 40 volunteers: swabs with two different tips (cotton- or synthetic-tipped) without VTM and standard synthetic tips with VTM. The swabs were processed immediately or after 12 days of storage at either -80°C or +4°C. The molecular analysis included viral RNA extraction, and combination of reverse transcriptase PCR and nested PCR. Enteroviral RNA was detected in 15% (6/40) of the studied volunteers. When processed immediately, the results for all three swab types were compatible. Swabs without VTM may be used for collection of clinical samples in the diagnosis of suspected enteroviral infections or as potential screening tools for enteroviruses (Tab. 2, Ref. 15).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Borsanyiova et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: