Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 11, 2025
Efficient SARS-CoV-2 Quantitative Reverse Transcriptase PCR Saliva Diagnostic Strategy utilizing Open-Source Pipetting Robots
Published on: February 11, 2022
Nasal swab is a good alternative sample for detecting SARS-CoV-2 with rapid antigen test: A meta-analysis
Jia-Wen Xie1, Ya-Wen Zheng1, Mao Wang1
1Center of Clinical Laboratory, Zhongshan Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China; Institute of Infectious Disease, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Background:
We aim to determine if nasal samples have equivalent detection sensitivity to nasopharyngeal swabs for RAT and evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of nasal swabs with RAT.
Methods:
PubMed and Web of Science were searched for eligible studies published before August 23, 2022. A bivariate random effects model was used to perform the quantitative synthesis.
Results:
The pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and summary AUC on nasal swabs with RAT were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.77-0.85), 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99-1.00), 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95-0.98), 298.91 (95% CI, 144.71-617.42) and 0.19 (95% CI, 0.15-0.23), respectively. WHO required RAT kits to perform with a sensitivity of 0.80 and a specificity of 0.97, nasal swabs (0.81) achieved the required sensitivity while nasopharyngeal swabs (0.75) did not. The symptomatic population yielded higher pooled sensitivity than the asymptomatic population (0.86 versus 0.71), with a pooled sensitivity of 0.90 for five days of symptom onset.
Conclusion:
Nasal sampling had a great performance and yielded a high sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2 using RAT, we believe that RAT performed with nasal swabs is a good alternative for detecting SARS-CoV-2, especially early in the onset of symptoms.
