Dataset Information

Comparison of self-collected and physician-collected vaginal swabs for microbiome analysis.

ABSTRACT: To our knowledge, no data are available on whether the microbial species composition and abundance sampled with self-collected vaginal swabs are comparable to those of swabs collected by clinicians. Twenty healthy women were recruited to the study during a routine gynecological visit. Eligible women were between 18 and 40 years old with regular menstrual cycles. Participants self-collected a vaginal swab using a standardized protocol and then were examined by a physician, who collected an additional five swabs from the lateral wall of the mid-vagina. In this study, the self-collected and three physician-obtained swabs were analyzed and compared using terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism and sequence analyses of the 16S rRNA genes. Vaginal microbial community comparative statistical analyses of both T-RFLP and 16S rRNA gene sequence datasets revealed that self-collected vaginal swabs sampled the same microbial diversity as physician collected swabs of the mid-vagina. These findings enable large-scale, field-based studies of the vaginal microbiome.

SUBMITTER: Forney LJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2863907 | biostudies-literature | 2010 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of self-collected and physician-collected vaginal swabs for microbiome analysis.

Forney Larry J LJ Gajer Pawel P Williams Christopher J CJ Schneider G Maria GM Koenig Sara S K SS McCulle Stacey L SL Karlebach Shara S Brotman Rebecca M RM Davis Catherine C CC Ault Kevin K Ravel Jacques J

Journal of clinical microbiology 20100303 5

To our knowledge, no data are available on whether the microbial species composition and abundance sampled with self-collected vaginal swabs are comparable to those of swabs collected by clinicians. Twenty healthy women were recruited to the study during a routine gynecological visit. Eligible women were between 18 and 40 years old with regular menstrual cycles. Participants self-collected a vaginal swab using a standardized protocol and then were examined by a physician, who collected an additi ...[more]

PMID: 20200290

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPolymerase chain reaction-based Xpert human papillomavirus (HPV) assay is a rapid test that detects high-risk HPV (hrHPV) infection. This point-of-care test is usually performed by collecting a cervical specimen in a vial of PreservCyt® transport medium. We compared HPV test positivity and accuracy between self-collected sample with a dry swab (s-DRY) versus physician-collected cervical sampling using a broom like brush and immediate immersion in PreservCyt (dr-WET).MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, we recruited 150 women ? 18 years old attending the colposcopy clinic in the University Hospital of Geneva. Each participant first self-collected a vaginal sample using a dry swab and then the physician collected a cervical specimen in PreservCyt. HPV analysis was performed with Xpert. Part of the PreservCyt-collected sample was used for hrHPV detection with the cobas® HPV test. HPV test positivity and performance of the two collection methods was compared.ResultsHPV positivity was 49.1% for s-DRY, 41.8% for dr-WET and 46.2% for cobas. Good agreement was found between s-DRY and dr-WET samples (kappa±Standard error (SE) = 0.64±0.09,), particularly for low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL+) (kappa±SE = 0.80±0.17). Excellent agreement was found between the two samples for HPV16 detection in general (kappa±SE = 0.91±0.09) and among LSIL+ lesions (kappa±SE = 1.00±0.17). Sensitivities and specificities were, respectively, 84.2% and 47.1%(s-DRY), 73.1% and 58.7%. (dr-WET) and 77.8% and 45.7% (cobas) for CIN2+ detection. The median delay between sampling and HPV analysis was 7 days for the Xpert HPV assay and 19 days for cobas. There were 36 (24.0%) invalid results among s-DRY samples and 4 (2.7%) among dr-WET (p = 0.001). Invalid results happened due to the long interval between collection and analysis.ConclusionSelf-collected vaginal dry swabs are a valid alternative to collecting cervical samples in PreservCyt solution for HPV testing with the Xpert HPV assay.ImpactHPV self-collection with dry cotton swabs might assist in the implementation of an effective screening strategy in developing countries.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry ISRCTN83050913.

Project description:ObjectivesSelf-collected vaginal swabs can facilitate diagnosis of vaginal discharge (VD) in resource-limited settings, provided reliability of the method is established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the concordance between self-collected and physician-collected vaginal swabs for aetiological diagnosis of VD and to determine the prevalence of bacterial vaginosis (BV), vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) and trichomonas vaginitis (TV).MethodsA total of 550 females (median age: 32 years; range: 18-45 years) attending two sexually transmitted infection/reproductive tract infection (STI/RTI) clinics with VD from January 2015 to May 2016 were included in the study after obtaining written informed consent. Swabs were self-collected by patients after instructions and subsequently by a physician under speculum examination. Samples were processed for standard bedside tests, Gram staining, wet mount and culture (gold standard) according to the national guidelines. Concordance between the two methods was determined by the Cohen's kappa value.ResultsBV, VVC and TV were diagnosed in 79 (14.4%), 144 (26.2%) and 3 (0.5%) patients, respectively. VVC coexisted with BV in 58 (10.5%) patients. There was no coinfection of TV with BV or VVC. Candida albicans was isolated in 84 (58.3%) VVC cases. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of self-collected swabs for diagnosing BV was 91.1%, 100%, 100% and 98.5%, respectively, while for the C. albicans VVC and TV, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV all were 100% as compared with physician-collected swabs. Highly concordant results were obtained between two methods by the Kappa values of 0.95 (BV), 0.99 (VVC) and 1.0 (TV).ConclusionThe comparative performance of self-collected and physician-collected vaginal swabs establishes self-collection of samples for BV, VVC and TV as a viable alternative tool in the management of STIs/RTIs, especially in peripheral and resource-constrained settings. This would be effective in implementing the diagnostic approaches for STIs/RTIs in community-based surveillance studies at national or regional level and therefore strengthening the National STI/RTI Control Programme.

Project description:ImportanceDespite the expansion of SARS-CoV-2 testing, available tests have not received Emergency Use Authorization for performance with self-collected anterior nares (nasal) swabs from children younger than 14 years because the effect of pediatric self-swabbing on SARS-CoV-2 test sensitivity is unknown.ObjectiveTo characterize the ability of school-aged children to self-collect nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing compared with collection by health care workers.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional study of 197 symptomatic children and adolescents aged 4 to 14 years old. Individuals were recruited based on results of testing in the Children's Healthcare of Atlanta system from July to August 2021.ExposuresChildren and adolescents were given instructional material consisting of a short instructional video and a handout with written and visual steps for self-swab collection. Participants first provided a self-collected nasal swab. Health care workers then collected a second specimen.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 detection and relative quantitation by cycle threshold (Ct) in self- vs health care worker-collected nasal swabs when tested with a real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction test with Emergency Use Authorization.ResultsAmong the study participants, 108 of 194 (55.7%) were male and the median age was 9 years (IQR, 6-11). Of the 196 participants, 87 (44.4%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 105 (53.6%) tested negative by both self- and health care worker-collected swabs. Two children tested positive by self- or health care worker-collected swab alone; 1 child had an invalid health care worker swab. Compared with health care worker-collected swabs, self-collected swabs had 97.8% (95% CI, 94.7%-100.0%) and 98.1% (95% CI, 95.6%-100.0%) positive and negative percent agreement, respectively, and SARS-CoV-2 Ct values did not differ significantly between groups (mean [SD] Ct, self-swab: 26.7 [5.4] vs health care worker swab: 26.3 [6.0]; P = .65).Conclusions and relevanceAfter hearing and seeing simple instructional materials, children and adolescents aged 4 to 14 years self-collected nasal swabs that closely agreed on SARS-CoV-2 detection with swabs collected by health care workers.

Dataset Information

Comparison of self-collected and physician-collected vaginal swabs for microbiome analysis.

Publications

Comparison of self-collected and physician-collected vaginal swabs for microbiome analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets