2020
DOI: 10.1128/jcm.00876-20
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Open Development and Clinical Validation of Multiple 3D-Printed Nasopharyngeal Collection Swabs: Rapid Resolution of a Critical COVID-19 Testing Bottleneck

Abstract: 27The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has caused a severe international shortage of the nasopharyngeal 28 swabs that are required for collection of optimal specimens, creating a critical bottleneck 29 blocking clinical laboratories' ability to perform high-sensitivity virological testing for SARS-CoV-30 2. To address this crisis, we designed and executed an innovative, cooperative, rapid-response 31 translational-research program that brought together healthcare workers, manufacturers, and 32 scientists to emergently deve… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
142
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 114 publications
(148 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
6
142
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Of the 27,098 tests performed on 20,076 patients over the testing period, 6,037 tests were positive (22%), representing 4,774 unique patients. Analysis of repeats within 6 or 12 hours of each other (7) demonstrated high repeatability of Ct values over these short time windows ( R 2 0.70 and 0.63, n=25 and 51, respectively), supporting the validity of this quantitative measure as a basis for assessment of viral load in patients (Fig. 1).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 59%
“…Of the 27,098 tests performed on 20,076 patients over the testing period, 6,037 tests were positive (22%), representing 4,774 unique patients. Analysis of repeats within 6 or 12 hours of each other (7) demonstrated high repeatability of Ct values over these short time windows ( R 2 0.70 and 0.63, n=25 and 51, respectively), supporting the validity of this quantitative measure as a basis for assessment of viral load in patients (Fig. 1).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 59%
“…Our work builds on recent work in the United States, where evaluation of four 3D‐printed swab prototypes found no differences between control and 3D‐printed swabs with respect to the detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 . The authors of the US study also employed an iterative design process, with close collaboration between academic, clinical, and industrial partners, but health care providers and participants both preferred standard swabs to the 3D‐printed swabs.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…We employed an iterative design process that incorporated feedback from clinical and engineering researchers. Based on initial specifications published by investigators in the United States, four initial prototype designs were printed. Printing was undertaken using selective laser sintering (SLS) technology (feature resolution, 80 μm) and PA2200 medical grade biocompatible nylon 12 as source material.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our data were similar to another comparison study between a commercial nasopharyngeal swab, a repurposed urogenital cleaning swab and four printed 3D prototypes with Cohen's kappa coefficients ranging from 0.85 to 0.90. [8] There are other prototypes of printed 3D swabs being tested. Manufacturing companies (Carbon, Redwood City, CA; Formlabs, Somerville, MA; Markforged, Watertown, MA;) currently manufacture and distribute 3D printed nasopharyngeal swabs for the purpose of detecting COVID-19, but efficiency data were not provided.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%