Comparison of different samples for 2019 novel coronavirus detection by nucleic acid amplification tests

Chunbao Xie(University of Electronic Science and Technology of China), Lingxi Jiang(University of Electronic Science and Technology of China), Guo Huang(University of Electronic Science and Technology of China), Hong Pu(University of Electronic Science and Technology of China), Bo Gong(University of Electronic Science and Technology of China), He Lin(University of Electronic Science and Technology of China), Shi Ma(University of Electronic Science and Technology of China), Xuemei Chen(University of Electronic Science and Technology of China), Bo Long(Sichuan Mianyang 404 Hospital), Guo Si(Sichuan Mianyang 404 Hospital), Hua Yu(University of Electronic Science and Technology of China), Li Jiang(University of Electronic Science and Technology of China), Xingxiang Yang(University of Electronic Science and Technology of China), Yi Shi(University of Electronic Science and Technology of China), Zhenglin Yang(University of Electronic Science and Technology of China)
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
February 27, 2020
10.1016/j.ijid.2020.02.050
Cited by 365Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

An ongoing outbreak of severe respiratory pneumonia associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus has recently emerged in China. Here we report the epidemiological, clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics of 19 suspect cases. We compared the positive ratio of 2019-nCoV nucleic acid amplification test results from different samples including oropharyngeal swab, blood, urine and stool with 3 different fluorescent RT-PCR kits. Nine out of the 19 patients had 2019-nCoV infection detected using oropharyngeal swab samples, and the virus nucleic acid was also detected in eight of these nine patients using stool samples. None of positive results was identified in the blood and urine samples. These three different kits got the same result for each sample and the positive ratio of nucleic acid detection for 2019-nCoV was only 47.4% in the suspect patients. Therefore, it is possible that infected patients have been missed by using nucleic acid detection only. It might be better to make a diagnosis combining the computed tomography scans and nucleic acid detection.

Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis