ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2025
Saline gargle collection method is comparable to nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabbing for the molecular detection and sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 in Botswana.
Article in Microbiology spectrum, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has highlighted the importance and challenges of the sample collection component of the diagnostic cycle. Although combined nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs (NOS) have historically been the gold standard of sampling, the saline gargle (SG) sampling method has been evaluated and implemented in multiple jurisdictions for respiratory pathogen detection. It has proven to be user-acceptable to patients, simple to collect, and highly sensitive to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection by molecular methods when compared to swabs. We performed a prospective cross-sectional study to evaluate the SG collection method against the NOS collection method for molecular detection and next-generation sequencing (NGS) of SARS-CoV-2 in Botswana. Paired SG and NOS samples were collected and underwent nucleic acid extraction prior to molecular detection. The SG had an overall sensitivity of 81.3% (95% CI: 68.8%%-96.0%), while the NOS had an overall sensitivity of 96.9% (95% CI: 84.3-99.4). Paired samples with a mean crossing threshold value of <35 also underwent NGS. SG specimens had a median genome coverage of 94.7% (interquartile range [IQR] 87.0%-99.2%) and NOS specimens had a median genome coverage of 99.6% (IQR 90.0%-99.6%). Bioinformatics analysis showed the 15 successfully matched pairs belong to clades BA.1 and BA.2 indicative of the Omicron variant. Further analysis at the nucleotide level showed a mean similarity of 99.998% ± 0.00465% between NOS and SG. This method has the potential to overcome the challenges that come with swab-based sampling for SARS-CoV-2 testing and may be an alternative in testing for other viral pathogens. IMPORTANCE: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a major challenge has been inadequate sampling for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Pediatric patients posed additional challenges with sample collection, and they and others are also at risk of rare complications from swab collection. Saline gargle (SG) sampling method has been evaluated and introduced as an alternative to swab collection in several jurisdictions. Our study affirms the acceptable performance of the saline gargle method for the molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 and also establishes that SG samples do not pose an obstacle for genomic sequencing of SARS-CoV-2. The SG method may be a reliable alternative for SARS-CoV-2 detection and next-generation sequencing, facilitating COVID-19 surveillance efforts in resource-constraint settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.