Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Bacteriology

Comparison of Flocked and Rayon Swabs for Detection of Nasal Carriage of Staphylococcus aureus among Pathology Staff Members

Sabine De Silva, Gillian Wood, Tricia Quek, Christine Parrott, Catherine M. Bennett
Sabine De Silva
1Dorevitch Pathology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
2Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gillian Wood
1Dorevitch Pathology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
2Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tricia Quek
3Melbourne School of Population Health, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
4Deakin Population Health, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christine Parrott
3Melbourne School of Population Health, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
4Deakin Population Health, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Catherine M. Bennett
3Melbourne School of Population Health, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
4Deakin Population Health, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: catherine.bennett@deakin.edu.au
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01617-09
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Comparison of flocked swabs (E-swabs; Copan) to the standard rayon swabs (Copan) was undertaken for detection of Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage among staff at Dorevitch Pathology in Heidelberg, Melbourne, Australia. Among 100 volunteers, 36 were found to be colonized with S. aureus by one or both swab results. The prevalence detected by E-swabs was 35%, and the prevalence through rayon swabs was 34% (95% confidence interval [CI] for the difference in proportions, −12 to 14). Thirty-three volunteers tested positive with both types of swabs, while 2 were detected on E-swabs alone and another on rayon swab testing alone. There was no evidence of a significant difference in carriage detected by E-swabs or rayon swabs.

Staphylococcus aureus is a common cause of infections in the community and a major cause of hospital-associated morbidity (18). Colonization is well described, with up to 30% of the population thought to be carriers (7, 16, 18), and is associated with a higher risk of infection in the hospital setting (2, 4, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18). The anterior nares have been shown to be the most frequent site of carriage and therefore a single site for detection (9, 10, 18). Nasal carriage is defined as “persistent” or “intermittent or noncarriage,” with persistent carriers showing an increased risk of infection, compared with intermittent carriers who share the same low risk as noncarriers (13). Given the clinical relevance, it is imperative to use the best swab system which would provide the highest yield in detecting nasal carriage. Flocked swabs have been described as improving uptake of epithelial cells and, therefore, microorganisms and viruses (1, 5, 6, 14), but are more expensive than standard rayon swabs, so it is therefore worth investigating whether there is evidence that E-swabs perform better in detecting nasal carriage.

Aims.

This study was designed to determine if there is a difference in the performance of E-swabs over standard rayon swabs in detecting nasal carriage of S. aureus among healthy adult staff volunteers at a pathology service in Melbourne, Australia.

Ethics approval was gained from The University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee (identification no. 0826852). Volunteers were recruited from staff based at Dorevitch Pathology in Melbourne.

All volunteers were sequentially allocated a study identification number, and individual results remained anonymous. Each volunteer had sampling from each naris with both swabs (E-swab and Rayon swab; Copan). To ensure that equal numbers of participants were swabbed with each swab type, participants with odd study numbers were sampled with an E-swab first (right then left naris) followed by the rayon swab and those with even study numbers were swabbed in the reverse order. The swab sequence was therefore captured in the study identification number, allowing us to investigate whether swab sequence was important and to control for potential bias associated with swab sequence. Laboratory staff involved in isolating S. aureus were blinded to the swabbing sequence.

To maximize sensitivity in detecting any S. aureus strains in the presence of other organisms collected by each of the swab types, the swabs were placed in an enrichment broth (tryptic soy broth [TSB] with 6.5% NaCl) overnight (3). The broth culture was then streaked onto horse blood agar (HBA) and chromogenic agar (CHROMID Staphylococcus aureus bioMérieux) using an inoculum of 10 μl (8). The plates were reviewed between 18 and 24 h, and any colony morphologically consistent with S. aureus had a Gram stain, followed by a coagulase test (Staphytec Oxoid) and confirmation using DNase (with ACM 5190 for S. aureus and ATCC 12225 for Staphylococcus epidermidis used as controls). Any discordant results were evaluated using a tube coagulase test (at 4 and 24 h).

A sample size of 100 was chosen to provide 80% power to detect a difference as small as 4.5% at a 0.05 probability level, assuming an S. aureus carriage prevalence of about 30% detected by rayon swabs. Descriptive statistical analyses and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed using Stata (version 10). As there is no “gold standard” test, we used a positive result on at least one swab type as the denominator for computing sensitivity.

A total of 100 volunteers were successfully recruited from the 677 staff employed at Dorevitch Pathology, Melbourne, representing approximately 15% of the total staff.

Thirty-six of the 100 volunteers had S. aureus detected from either or both swabs, with an overall carriage prevalence based on both swab results of 36%. Thirty-three carriers were detected by both the E-swabs and rayon swabs (Table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1.

Overall results from flocked and rayon swabs

Table 2 represents the swab results for the three individuals who had discordant results between the two swabs; all three were swabbed with the rayon swab first.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2.

Discordant results between the two swabsa

The prevalence detected by E-swabs was 35%, while that through rayon swabs was 34% (95% CI for the difference in proportions, −12 to 14). Presuming the volunteers with any positive result represent the true-positive population (36%), the sensitivities for carriage are 97.2% for the E-swabs (95% CI, 85.5 to 99.9) and 94.4% for the rayon swabs (95% CI, 81.3 to 99.3). The swab results were concordant for 92% of the 36 volunteers who had at least one positive result. It should be noted that the only positive rayon swab result among the discordant results occurred when the rayon swab was applied first. The two discordant results positive by the E-swab only, on the other hand, occurred when the E-swab was the second swab used and so cannot be explained by the swabbing sequence.

Our findings do not argue for the use of E-swabs in large-scale screening programs for nasal carriage, particularly given the swab cost differential (E-swab, $1.60 Australian; rayon swab, $0.38 Australian).

There are several limitations to this study, including the lack of a gold standard to compare the E-swabs with for determination of sensitivity and specificity. Only one anatomical site for screening was used, and it been well described in the literature that sampling more than one site increases the yield of detection (18). The main reason for choosing the anterior nares alone was that the nares were deemed the least invasive site, had previously been described as the best single site for detection of colonization (9, 18), and are being used in large-scale community-based studies: for instance, the Community Onset Staphylococcus aureus Household (COSAHC) study under way in Melbourne. Finally, we only tested these swabs under more optimal volunteer conditions; we cannot rule out that one swab type may be more effective than the other in clinical settings where other patient and context factors may have an impact on the swabbing procedure.

Flocked swabs are becoming more commonly used in pathology specimen collection. The increased surface area and ease of use have been major positive aspects of their use. This small study illustrates that the standard rayon swabs can be as effective in detection of S. aureus nasal carriage as the more expensive E-swabs. The use of E-swabs in sampling other colonization and wound sites may be worth investigating further.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council as part of the Community Onset Staphylococcus aureus Household Cohort (COSAHC) study.

We thank the 100 volunteers from the Dorevitch Pathology staff for participating in this study.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 19 August 2009.
    • Returned for modification 21 December 2009.
    • Accepted 14 May 2010.
  • Copyright © 2010 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Abu-Diab, A., M. Azzeh, R. Ghneim, R. Ghneim, M. Zoughbi, S. Turkuman, N. Rishmani, A. E. Issa, I. Siriani, R. Dauodi, and R. Kattan. 2008. Comparison between pernasal flocked swabs and nasopharyngeal aspirates for the detection of common respiratory viruses in samples from children. J. Clin. Microbiol. 46 : 2414-2417.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Bert, F., J.-O. Galdbart, V. Zarrouk, J. Le Mee, F. Durand, F. Mentre, J. Belghiti, N. Lambert-Zechovsky, and F. Fantin. 2000. Association between nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus and infection in liver tranplant recipients. Clin. Infect. Dis. 31 : 1295-1299.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Compernolle, V., G. Verschraegen, G. and G. Claeys. 2007. Combined use of Pastorex-Staph-Plus and either of two new chromogenic agars, MRSA ID and CHROMagar MRSA, for detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Clin. Microbiol. 45 : 154-158.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    Datta, R., and S. S. Huang. 2008. Risk of infection and death due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in long-term carriers. Clin. Infect. Dis. 47 : 176-181.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    DeFields, M., J. Davidson, A. Bergstrome, C. Pienaar, and M. T. Kelly. 2007. Evaluation of flocked nylon swabs (Copan ESwab) for detection of bacterial pathogens by culture and PCR, abstr. C-364 p. 215. Abstr. 107th Gen. Meet. Am. Soc. Microbiol. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC.
  6. 6.↵
    Drake, C., J. Barenfanger, J. Lawhorn, and S. Verhulst. 2005. Comparison of Easy-flow Copan liquid Stuart's and Starplex swab transport systems for recovery of fastidious aerobic bacteria. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43 : 1301-1303.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    Graham, P. L., S. X. Lin, and E. L. Larson. 2006. A US population-based survey of Staphylococcus aureus colonization. Ann. Intern. Med. 144 : 318-325.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    Han, Z., E. Lautenbach, N. Fishman, and I. Nachamkin. 2007. Evaluation of mannitol salt agar, CHROMagar Staph aureus and CHROMagar MRSA for detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from nasal swab specimens. J. Med. Microbiol. 56 : 43-46.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    Kluytmans, J., A. van Belkum, and H. A. Verbrugh. 1997. Nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus: epidemiology, underlying mechanisms and associated risks. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 10 : 505-520.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    Mertz, D., R. Frei, B. Jaussi, A. Tietz, C. Stebler, U. Fluckiger, and A. F. Widmer. 2007. Throat swabs are necessary to reliably detect carriers of Staphylococcus aureus. Clin. Infect. Dis. 45 : 475-477.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    Munoz, P., J. Hortal, M. Giannella, J. M. Barrio, M. Rodriguez-Crexems, M. J. Perez, C. Rincon, and E. Bouza. 2008. Nasal carriage of S aureus increases the risk of surgical site infection after major heart surgery. J. Hosp. Infect. 68 : 25-31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. 12.↵
    Safdar, N., and E. A. Bradley. 2008. The risk of infection after colonization with Staphylococcus aureus. Am. J. Med. 121 : 310-315.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    van Belkum, A., N. J. Verkaik, C. P. de Vogel, H. A. Boelens, J. Verveer, J. L. Nouwen, H. A. Verbrugh, and H. F. L. Wertheim. 2009. Reclassification of Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage types. J. Infect. Dis. 199 : 1820-1826.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    Van Horn, K. G., C. D. Audette, D. Sebeck, and K. A. Tucker. 2008. Comparison of Copan E-swab system with two Amies agar swab transport systems for maintenance of microorganism viability. J. Clin. Microbiol. 46 : 1655-1658.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    van Rijen, M. M. L., and J. A. J. W. Kluytmans. 2008. New approaches to prevention of staphylococcal infection in surgery. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 21 : 380-384.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    Vlack, S., L. Cox, A. Y. Peleg, C. Canuto, C. Stewart, A. Conlon, A. Stephens, P. Giffard, F. Huygens, A. Mollinger, R. Vohra, and J. S. McCarthy. 2006. Carriage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a Queensland community. Med. J. Aust. 184 : 556-559.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  17. 17.↵
    von Eiff, C., K. Becker, K. Machka, H. Stammer, and G. Peters. 2001. Nasal carriage as a source of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. N. Engl. J. Med. 344 : 11-16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    Wertheim, H. F. L., D. C. Melles, M. C. Vos, W. van Leeuwen, A. van Belkum, H. A. Verbrugh, and J. L. Nouwen. 2005. The role of nasal carriage in Staphylococcus aureus infections. Lancet Infect. Dis. 5 : 751-762.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Comparison of Flocked and Rayon Swabs for Detection of Nasal Carriage of Staphylococcus aureus among Pathology Staff Members
Sabine De Silva, Gillian Wood, Tricia Quek, Christine Parrott, Catherine M. Bennett
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Jul 2010, 48 (8) 2963-2964; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01617-09

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Clinical Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparison of Flocked and Rayon Swabs for Detection of Nasal Carriage of Staphylococcus aureus among Pathology Staff Members
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Clinical Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Comparison of Flocked and Rayon Swabs for Detection of Nasal Carriage of Staphylococcus aureus among Pathology Staff Members
Sabine De Silva, Gillian Wood, Tricia Quek, Christine Parrott, Catherine M. Bennett
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Jul 2010, 48 (8) 2963-2964; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01617-09
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • Aims.
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

bacteriological techniques
Carrier State
Health Personnel
Nose
Specimen Handling
Staphylococcal Infections
Staphylococcus aureus

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JCM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • Editor Conflicts of Interest
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Resources for Clinical Microbiologists
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #JClinMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

 

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0095-1137; Online ISSN: 1098-660X