Skip to main content

Table 2 Indirect comparison of sensitivity of different self-swabbing approaches (mid-turbinate vs. nose and throat)

From: Effectiveness and user experience of nose and throat swabbing techniques for SARS-CoV-2 detection: results from the UK COVID-19 National Testing Programme

 

SS-MT-LFD1a [34]

Mid-turbinate

(N = 1102)

SS-NT-LFD2c [34]

Nose and throat

(N = 635)

Difference (95% CI); p valued

N

TP

TN

FP

FN

Sensitivity, % (95% CI)b

N

TP

TN

FP

FN

Sensitivity, % (95% CI)b

Overall

1102

237

775

2

88

72.9 (67.7–77.7)

631

415

0

0

216

65.8 (61.9–69.5)

7.2 (0.8–13.5); p = 0.03

Viral concentration

 < 10 K

48

9

0

0

39

18.8 (9.0–32.6)

66

13

0

0

53

19.7 (10.9–31.3)

 − 1.0 (− 16.5–14.6); p = 1.00

 10 K–1 M

110

70

0

0

40

63.6 (53.9–72.6)

216

118

0

0

98

54.6 (47.7–61.4)

9.0 (− 2.9–20.9) p = 0.15

> 1 M

154

151

0

0

3

98.1 (94.4–99.6)

349

284

0

0

65

81.4 (76.9–85.3)

16.7 (11.6–21.8) p < 0.005

  1. CI confidence interval, FN false negative, FP false positive, LFD lateral flow device, MT mid-turbinate, NT nose and throat, PCR polymerase chain reaction, SS self-swabbing, TN true negative, TP true positive
  2. SS-MT-LFD1 SS of both nostrils to mid-turbinate level with the Innova LFD. SS-NT-LFD2 SS of the nose and throat with the Innova LFD
  3. aDoes not include any samples that were missing, void, or dropped out for PCR and LFD
  4. bSensitivity = TP/(TP + FN), Binomial 95% CIs Pearson-Klopper method
  5. cDataset for final analysis only contained PCR–positive samples
  6. dTwo-sample Chi-squared test for equality of proportions, comparing the sensitivity between studies SS-MT-LFD1 versus SS-NT-LFD2