Nasopharyngeal tuberculosis

Mishra, Rahul; Prasad, B K; Mathew, Sumi

doi:10.1016/j.mjafi.2014.12.013

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mycobacterium tuberculosis, was mostly detected in sputum specimens, however, one case was detected in the NP/OP swab and not found in the sputum specimen. Though others suggested that this could happen in cases of extra-pulmonary tuberculosis 13 , we found that this patient was positive by GeneXpert (data not shown) which may suggest some shortfalls of testing for Mycobacterium tuberculosis in sputum using TAC.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

Comparison of respiratory pathogen yields from Nasopharyngeal/Oropharyngeal swabs and sputum specimens collected from hospitalized adults in rural Western Kenya

Nyawanda

Njuguna

Onyango

et al. 2019

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Molecular diagnostic methods are becoming increasingly available for assessment of acute lower respiratory illnesses (ALRI). However, nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal (NP/OP) swabs may not accurately reflect etiologic agents from the lower respiratory tract where sputum specimens are considered as a more representative sample. The pathogen yields from NP/OP against sputum specimens have not been extensively explored, especially in tropical countries. We compared pathogen yields from NP/OP swabs and sputum specimens from patients ≥18 years hospitalized with ALRI in rural Western Kenya. Specimens were tested for 30 pathogens using TaqMan Array Cards (TAC) and results compared using McNemar’s test. The agreement for pathogen detection between NP/OP and sputum specimens ranged between 85–100%. More viruses were detected from NP/OP specimens whereas Klebsiella pneumoniae and Mycobacterium tuberculosis were more common in sputum specimens. There was no clear advantage in using sputum over NP/OP specimens to detect pathogens of ALRI in adults using TAC in the context of this tropical setting.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%