Next Article in Journal
Prognostic Factors of Survival in Patients with Peritoneal Metastasis from Colorectal Cancer
Previous Article in Journal
New Insights on the Minimal-Invasive Therapy of Cervical Cancer
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Reply

Reply to Fabbris et al. A Viable Alternative. Comment on “Kohmer et al. Self-Collected Samples to Detect SARS-CoV-2: Direct Comparison of Saliva, Tongue Swab, Nasal Swab, Chewed Cotton Pads and Gargle Lavage. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 5751”

1
Institute for Medical Virology, University Hospital, Goethe University Frankfurt, 60596 Frankfurt, Germany
2
Health Protection Authority, City of Frankfurt, 60313 Frankfurt, Germany
3
German Centre for Infection Research, External Partner Site, 60323 Frankfurt, Germany
4
Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology (IME), Branch Translational Medicine and Pharmacology, 60596 Frankfurt, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(16), 4920; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11164920
Submission received: 6 July 2022 / Revised: 15 August 2022 / Accepted: 18 August 2022 / Published: 22 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Topic Infectious Diseases)
We thank Fabbris et al. for their remarks [1] on our publication “Self-Collected Samples to Detect SARS-CoV-2: Direct Comparison of Saliva, Tongue Swab, Nasal Swab, Chewed Cotton Pads and Gargle Lavage” [2].
We agree that nasal wash or nasopharyngeal aspirate, which has previously been demonstrated to be useful when testing for different viruses, Ref. [3] may also be an interesting candidate to test for SARS-CoV-2 in a self-collected environment.
In our study, we limited the number of different collection techniques to avoid overwhelming the study participants with a multitude of samples collected without supervision by a medical professional, and due to potential interference between different specimens.
Our study was designed to assess the diagnostic sensitivity of self-collected specimens. Therefore, we recruited patients who were known to be infected with SARS-CoV-2. This prohibited us from determining the specificity of the materials examined in our study.

Funding

Data from the original work of this reply was based on research funded in part by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research through project NaFoUniMedCovid19 [B-FAST]—COVIDready (grant 02WRS1621C).

Conflicts of Interest

S.C. and S.H.: Research support from Roche diagnostics; S.C.: Speaker’s fee from Roche diagnostics. All other authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

References

  1. Fabbris, C.; Camerotto, R.; Battistuzzi, V.; Spinato, G. A Viable Alternative. Comment on Kohmer et al. Self-Collected Samples to Detect SARS-CoV-2: Direct Comparison of Saliva, Tongue Swab, Nasal Swab, Chewed Cotton Pads and Gargle Lavage. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 5751. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 4501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Kohmer, N.; Eckermann, L.; Böddinghaus, B.; Götsch, U.; Berger, A.; Herrmann, E.; Kortenbusch, M.; Tinnemann, P.; Gottschalk, R.; Hoehl, S.; et al. Self-Collected Samples to Detect SARS-CoV-2: Direct Comparison of Saliva, Tongue Swab, Nasal Swab, Chewed Cotton Pads and Gargle Lavage. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 5751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Flynn, M.F.; Kelly, M.; Dooley, J.S.G. Nasopharyngeal Swabs vs. Nasal Aspirates for Respiratory Virus Detection: A Systematic Review. Pathogens 2021, 10, 1515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hoehl, S.; Kohmer, N.; Eckermann, L.; Gottschalk, R.; Ciesek, S. Reply to Fabbris et al. A Viable Alternative. Comment on “Kohmer et al. Self-Collected Samples to Detect SARS-CoV-2: Direct Comparison of Saliva, Tongue Swab, Nasal Swab, Chewed Cotton Pads and Gargle Lavage. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 5751”. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 4920. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11164920

AMA Style

Hoehl S, Kohmer N, Eckermann L, Gottschalk R, Ciesek S. Reply to Fabbris et al. A Viable Alternative. Comment on “Kohmer et al. Self-Collected Samples to Detect SARS-CoV-2: Direct Comparison of Saliva, Tongue Swab, Nasal Swab, Chewed Cotton Pads and Gargle Lavage. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 5751”. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(16):4920. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11164920

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hoehl, Sebastian, Niko Kohmer, Lisa Eckermann, Rene Gottschalk, and Sandra Ciesek. 2022. "Reply to Fabbris et al. A Viable Alternative. Comment on “Kohmer et al. Self-Collected Samples to Detect SARS-CoV-2: Direct Comparison of Saliva, Tongue Swab, Nasal Swab, Chewed Cotton Pads and Gargle Lavage. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 5751”" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 16: 4920. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11164920

APA Style

Hoehl, S., Kohmer, N., Eckermann, L., Gottschalk, R., & Ciesek, S. (2022). Reply to Fabbris et al. A Viable Alternative. Comment on “Kohmer et al. Self-Collected Samples to Detect SARS-CoV-2: Direct Comparison of Saliva, Tongue Swab, Nasal Swab, Chewed Cotton Pads and Gargle Lavage. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 5751”. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11(16), 4920. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11164920

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop