Anterior Nares Swabs for RSV Detection: A Comprehensive Review of Sensitivity, Specificity, and Clinical Utility

Abstract

This article provides a critical analysis of anterior nares (nasal) swabs for the detection of Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), addressing the needs of researchers and drug development professionals. It explores the foundational principles of RSV replication and sample collection, evaluates the performance of various molecular and rapid diagnostic methodologies applied to anterior nares specimens, and discusses strategies for optimizing detection sensitivity and workflow integration. The content further synthesizes validation data from recent clinical studies and comparative analyses against gold-standard nasopharyngeal swabs and other sample types, offering evidence-based insights to guide diagnostic development, clinical trial design, and public health strategy.

RSV Pathogenesis and the Rationale for Anterior Nares Sampling

Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) is a significant global respiratory pathogen that poses a substantial threat to vulnerable populations, including infants, older adults, and immunocompromised individuals. Despite being a common cause of mild, cold-like symptoms in the general population, RSV can lead to severe lower respiratory tract infections, resulting in considerable morbidity, mortality, and healthcare burden worldwide [1]. This review examines the global impact of RSV, its clinical manifestations across different risk groups, and recent advances in prevention strategies, with particular focus on detection methodologies including anterior nares swab sampling.

Global Burden of RSV

Worldwide Epidemiology and Impact

RSV exerts a substantial disease burden across all regions, with particularly severe impacts on pediatric populations and older adults. The virus demonstrates distinct seasonal patterns, with annual epidemics occurring primarily in late fall and winter in temperate climates, typically lasting approximately five months [1]. Tropical and subtropical regions also experience consistent months of high RSV circulation, though with less sharply defined seasonality patterns [1].

Table 1: Global Burden of RSV in Children Under 5 Years

Parameter	Global Estimate	Key Observations	Source
Annual Hospitalizations	3.6 million	Leading cause of infant hospitalization in the U.S.	[1]
Annual Deaths	~100,000	97% occur in low- and middle-income countries	[1]
Highest Risk Group	Infants <6 months	Account for approximately half of pediatric RSV deaths	[1]
U.S. Hospitalization Rate	2-3% of infants <6 months	Most common cause of hospitalization in U.S. infants	[2]

Burden in Adult Populations

While historically recognized primarily as a pediatric pathogen, RSV increasingly is acknowledged as a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in older adults and immunocompromised individuals. In the United States alone, RSV causes an estimated 160,000 hospitalizations and 10,000 deaths annually among adults aged 65 and older [1]. The risk of severe outcomes is substantially higher in individuals with underlying comorbidities such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, congestive heart failure, or immunocompromising conditions [3] [4].

A systematic review of RSV epidemiology in high-risk adults (aged 18-59 with comorbidities) and adults aged ≥50 years in developing countries revealed considerable evidence gaps but confirmed substantial negative health impacts, with case fatality rates of up to 15.2% and 27.0% in these populations, respectively [4]. The same review reported RSV positivity rates ranging from 1.5-31.9% among high-risk adults with respiratory conditions and 0-9.1% among adults ≥50 years with respiratory illnesses [4].

Clinical Presentation Across Vulnerable Populations

Spectrum of RSV Disease

RSV causes a wide spectrum of respiratory diseases, from mild upper respiratory tract infections to life-threatening lower respiratory tract infections [1]. The virus specifically infects cells along the human respiratory tract, from the nose to the lungs, with an incubation period of 4-7 days after exposure [1].

Table 2: Clinical Presentation of RSV Across Different Age Groups

Population	Common Symptoms	Severe Disease Manifestations	Risk Factors for Severe Disease
Infants & Young Children	Rhinorrhea (runny nose), decreased appetite, cough, sneezing, fever, wheezing	Bronchiolitis, pneumonia, apnea (in very young infants), respiratory failure	Prematurity, age <6 months, neuromuscular disorders, congenital anomalies, immunocompromised status [3]
Older Adults	Runny nose, sore throat, cough, headache, fatigue, fever	Exacerbation of underlying conditions (COPD, asthma, heart failure), pneumonia, death	Age ≥75 years, chronic cardiopulmonary disease, diabetes with complications, renal failure, neurologic disorders, immunocompromise, nursing home residence [3]
Immunocompromised	Variable; may range from mild URI to severe LRI	Rapid progression to severe bronchiolitis, pneumonia, respiratory failure	Hematologic malignancies, transplant recipients, HIV/AIDS, other immunocompromising conditions [4]

Pathophysiology and Long-Term Consequences

RSV infects the respiratory epithelium, causing inflammation and increased mucus secretion [2]. In children, mucus can become trapped in the narrow bronchioles, preventing proper gas exchange and leading to bronchiolitis - an inflammation of the small airways in the lungs [2]. In severe cases, RSV can progress to pneumonia, characterized by swelling and fluid accumulation in the lung's air sacs [2].

Notably, RSV infection early in life may have long-term consequences, increasing the risk of recurrent wheezing, asthma, and impaired lung function beyond infancy [2] [1]. Similarly, adults hospitalized with RSV face increased risks of cardiovascular complications, including heart failure, abnormal heart rhythms, strokes, and heart attacks, even months after the initial infection has resolved [2].

Detection Methods and Anterior Nares Swab Sampling

Sample Collection Techniques for RSV Detection

The accurate detection of RSV is crucial for clinical management, infection control, and public health surveillance. Traditionally, nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPA) have been considered the gold standard for respiratory virus detection due to their high viral loads. However, less invasive sampling methods have been developed to facilitate easier collection, particularly in pediatric populations and for large-scale surveillance studies.

Table 3: Comparison of Respiratory Sample Collection Methods for RSV Detection by Multiplex PCR

Parameter	Nasopharyngeal Aspirate (NPA)	Anterior Nares Swab	Facial Tissue
Collection Method	Invasive; suction through nostril to nasopharynx	Minimally invasive; swab of nostril interior	Non-invasive; collection of nasal discharge
Sensitivity for RSV	Gold standard (reference)	94% (compared to NPA)	84% (compared to NPA)
Overall Virus Detection	91% positive for ≥1 virus	82% positive for ≥1 virus	77% positive for ≥1 virus
Practical Advantages	High sensitivity	Simplicity, patient comfort, suitability for surveillance	Ease of collection, minimal training required
Limitations	Invasiveness, requires trained personnel, patient discomfort	Slightly lower sensitivity for some viruses	Variable sample quality, lower sensitivity

A 2011 study evaluating non-invasive sample collection for respiratory virus testing found that anterior nare swabs demonstrated 94% sensitivity for RSV detection compared to NPA, with specificity ≥95% [5]. This high sensitivity for RSV specifically makes anterior nares swabbing a particularly valuable method for RSV surveillance and clinical diagnosis.

Experimental Protocol for Anterior Nares Swab Collection

Based on the methodology from published studies, the following protocol outlines proper anterior nares swab collection for RSV detection:

Materials Needed:

• Sterile flocked or polyester swabs with plastic shaft
• Appropriate transport medium (viral transport medium or universal transport medium)
• Labeled specimen container
• Personal protective equipment (gloves, mask)

Procedure:

• Instruct the patient to tilt their head back slightly.
• Gently insert the swab into one nostril approximately 1-2 cm (approximately ½ to 1 inch) until resistance is met at the turbinates.
• Rotate the swab against the nasal wall 3-4 times, maintaining contact for 10-15 seconds to absorb secretions.
• Repeat the process in the second nostril using the same swab.
• Carefully place the swab into the transport medium, ensuring the tip is completely immersed.
• Break or cut the swab shaft at the score mark, if present, and securely close the container.
• Store specimens at 2-8°C and transport to the laboratory within 24-72 hours for PCR testing.

For self-collection, patients should receive clear pictorial and written instructions, as studies during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that anterior nares swabs are more easily self-administered with fewer incidents compared to throat swabs [6].

Performance Characteristics of Anterior Nares Swabs

The diagnostic performance of anterior nares swabs for RSV detection is influenced by several factors, including viral load, symptom duration, and patient age. The 2011 comparative study demonstrated that while overall sensitivity for respiratory virus detection was 74% for anterior nare swabs compared to NPA, RSV specifically showed excellent sensitivity of 94% [5]. This suggests that RSV produces sufficient viral shedding in the anterior nares for reliable detection.

The high specificity (≥95%) of anterior nares swabs for RSV detection makes false-positive results unlikely, which is particularly important for clinical decision-making and infection control measures [5]. The slightly lower overall viral detection rate (82% for anterior nares swabs versus 91% for NPA) may be offset by the advantages of easier collection, particularly in pediatric populations or when large-scale testing is required [5].

Recent Advances in RSV Prevention

Immunization Strategies

After decades of research, significant breakthroughs in RSV prevention have emerged recently. Currently, two primary immunization strategies are available for infant protection:

• Maternal Vaccination: The Abrysvo vaccine (Pfizer) administered during weeks 32-36 of pregnancy enables antibody transfer through the placenta, providing approximately 91% protection against severe RSV in the first three months of life [2] [3].

• Monoclonal Antibodies: Nirsevimab (Beyfortus) and clesrovimab are long-acting monoclonal antibodies administered directly to infants, offering protection for at least five months (covering a typical RSV season) [2]. Real-world effectiveness data from the 2024-2025 season in Southern Italy demonstrated 84.4% protection against RSV hospitalization using the screening method [7].

For older adults (≥60 years), three vaccines are currently available: GSK's Arexvy, Moderna's mResvia, and Pfizer's Abrysvo [2]. Studies in older veterans demonstrated that RSV vaccination was associated with approximately 80% reduction in ED visits, urgent care visits, and hospitalizations due to RSV [2].

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Materials for RSV Studies

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for RSV Detection Studies

Reagent/Equipment	Function/Application	Examples/Specifications
Sample Collection Swabs	Collection of nasal specimens	Flocked or polyester swabs with plastic shafts; sterile packaging
Viral Transport Medium	Preservation of viral integrity during transport	Contains protein stabilizer, antimicrobial agents; maintains viral viability
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits	RNA extraction from clinical samples	Automated or manual systems; high-purity RNA yield
Multiplex PCR Panels	Simultaneous detection of RSV and other respiratory pathogens	Allplex Respiratory Panel Assays; detects RSV A/B subtypes
Reverse Transcriptase Enzymes	cDNA synthesis from viral RNA	High-fidelity enzymes with minimal degradation
Positive Controls	Assay validation and quality control	Quantified RSV RNA or inactivated virus; A and B subtypes
Lateral Flow Devices	Rapid antigen detection	Point-of-care testing; lower sensitivity but rapid results

RSV remains a pathogen of substantial global importance, causing severe disease burden in vulnerable populations including infants, older adults, and immunocompromised individuals. The clinical presentation varies across these groups, necessitating different management approaches. Recent breakthroughs in immunization strategies, including maternal vaccines and long-acting monoclonal antibodies, offer promising avenues for reducing RSV-associated morbidity and mortality. For detection, anterior nares swabs provide a less invasive alternative to nasopharyngeal aspirates with particularly high sensitivity (94%) for RSV specifically, making them valuable tools for clinical diagnosis and surveillance studies, especially in settings where less invasive sampling is preferred. Continued research into improved detection methods and prevention strategies remains crucial for addressing the ongoing challenges posed by this significant respiratory pathogen.

The efficacy of respiratory virus diagnostics is intrinsically linked to the precise anatomical sites of viral replication within the respiratory tract. This review objectively compares the performance of anterior nares (AN) and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs for the detection of respiratory pathogens, with a focused analysis on Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV). Supporting data from controlled studies, primarily on SARS-CoV-2, are synthesized to provide a framework for RSV detection research. Evidence indicates that while NP swabs often demonstrate superior sensitivity, AN swabs present a viable alternative in high viral load scenarios or early infection stages, offering practical advantages for large-scale screening and self-collection. The findings underscore the necessity of aligning sample collection strategies with the spatial and temporal dynamics of viral replication to optimize diagnostic sensitivity and specificity.

Viral replication is not a random event but a carefully orchestrated process that begins with attachment to specific cellular receptors, followed by penetration, uncoating, replication, assembly, and release of new virions [8] [9]. Tropism, the specificity of a virus for a particular host cell or tissue, is a key determinant of this process, governed by the presence of compatible receptors on the host cell surface [8]. For respiratory viruses, this tropism dictates which cells and tissues along the respiratory tract are susceptible to infection, thereby influencing the optimal site for clinical sample collection.

The respiratory tract is anatomically and functionally diverse, and the replication preferences of viruses within this system vary significantly. Research on Bovine Respiratory Syncytial Virus (BRSV), a close relative of Human RSV (HRSV), has demonstrated that replication occurs in the luminal part of respiratory epithelial cells and that viral replication in the upper respiratory tract precedes replication in the lower respiratory tract [10]. This pattern of spread has profound implications for diagnostic sampling, as the location and timing of sample collection can dramatically affect test sensitivity.

This article frames its analysis within the broader thesis of enhancing the specificity and sensitivity of anterior nares swab RSV detection. We systematically compare the performance of different swab types and collection sites by reviewing experimental data, detailing relevant methodologies, and presenting the key reagents that form the foundation of this field.

Viral Replication Cycle and Respiratory Tract Tropism

The Universal Stages of Viral Replication

All viruses, including respiratory viruses, must complete a series of stages to successfully replicate and propagate. The universal stages of viral replication are [8] [9] [11]:

• Attachment: The virus binds to specific receptors on the host cell surface via viral attachment proteins. For example, influenza A virus binds to sialic acid sugars, and RSV utilizes the G glycoprotein for attachment [8].
• Penetration: The virus enters the cell, typically through receptor-mediated endocytosis or fusion with the plasma membrane [8].
• Uncoating: The viral capsid is degraded, releasing the viral genomic nucleic acid into the host cytoplasm [9].
• Replication: The viral genome hijacks the host cell's machinery to synthesize new viral proteins and replicate its genetic material [11].
• Assembly: Newly synthesized viral components are packaged into nascent virions [9].
• Maturation & Release: Infectious virions are released from the host cell, either by budding (for enveloped viruses, often without immediate cell death) or lysis (which kills the infected cell) [9].

The following diagram illustrates this continuous process, highlighting the critical first step of attachment, which is determined by tropism.

RSV Replication and Cellular Targets

RSV is an enveloped, negative-sense RNA virus belonging to the Pneumoviridae family [12]. Its replication strategy involves entering susceptible respiratory epithelial cells, with its genome being transcribed into 10 subgenomic mRNAs that encode 11 viral proteins [12].

Crucial insights into the spatial dynamics of RSV infection come from animal models. Experimental BRSV infection in calves, which closely mirrors HRSV infection in humans, has shown that replication is confined to the luminal part of respiratory epithelial cells [10]. This study further demonstrated that replication in the upper respiratory tract occurs before the virus spreads to the lower respiratory tract. This temporal and spatial progression underscores why sampling the respiratory epithelium is critical for diagnosis and suggests that the optimal sampling site may change during the course of infection.

Advanced research tools, such as recombinant HRSV engineered to express reporter genes like mCherry (red fluorescent protein) or luciferase, have enabled precise visualization of viral replication in cells and in living mice [12]. These tools confirm the virus's tropism for respiratory epithelium and provide a high-throughput means to study replication and screen antiviral compounds.

Comparative Analysis of Sample Collection Sites

The site of sample collection is a major determinant of diagnostic accuracy, as it must align with the primary sites of viral replication. The following table summarizes key performance metrics from published studies comparing anterior nares (AN) and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs, primarily for SARS-CoV-2, providing a benchmark for RSV research.

Table 1: Performance comparison of anterior nares (AN) and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs in detecting respiratory viruses.

Study & Pathogen	Test Method	Sample Type	Sensitivity (%) (vs. Reference)	Key Performance Metric
SARS-CoV-2 [13]	Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT)	AN Swab	76.7% Overall Agreement with NP	Positive Agreement: 95.1% when NP Ct ≤30
SARS-CoV-2 [13]	Quantitative Antigen Test (QAT)	AN Swab	65.0% Overall Agreement with NP	Positive Agreement: 90.0% when NP Ag >100 pg/mL
SARS-CoV-2 [14]	Antigen RDT (Sure-Status)	AN Swab	85.6%	Equivalent to NP swab (83.9%)
SARS-CoV-2 [14]	Antigen RDT (Biocredit)	AN Swab	79.5%	Equivalent to NP swab (81.2%)
SARS-CoV-2 [15]	RT-PCR	AN Swab (FLOQSwab)	84%	Higher than tongue swab sensitivity

Nasopharyngeal (NP) Swabs: The Traditional Gold Standard

NP swabs are collected by inserting a swab deep into the nostril to the posterior nasopharynx, a site rich in respiratory epithelium. This method is considered the gold standard for the detection of many respiratory viruses, including RSV and SARS-CoV-2 [13] [14]. The superior sensitivity of NP swabs is attributed to their direct sampling of a major site of active viral replication, especially in the early phases of infection [10].

Anterior Nares (AN) Swabs: A Less-Invasive Alternative

AN (nasal) swabs are collected from the anterior portion of the nostrils, a less invasive procedure that is more comfortable for patients and suitable for self-collection. While generally found to be slightly less sensitive than NP swabs in RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 [13], their performance is highly dependent on viral load.

Multiple studies conclude that the diagnostic accuracy of AN swabs can be equivalent to that of NP swabs for certain antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) [14]. However, a common observation is that the test line intensity on Ag-RDTs can be lower with AN swabs, which could potentially lead to misinterpretation by lay users [14]. The critical factor is the viral load: one study showed that AN swabs had a 95.1% positive agreement with NP swabs in NAAT when the cycle threshold (Ct) value from the NP swab was ≤30, indicating high viral load [13]. Similarly, for quantitative antigen tests, AN swabs performed well (90.0% positive agreement) when antigen levels from NP swabs were high (>100 pg/mL) [13].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

The data presented in comparative studies are generated through carefully controlled experimental designs. The following workflow outlines a typical head-to-head diagnostic evaluation study.

Detailed Methodology for Head-to-Head Swab Comparison

The following protocol is synthesized from the cited studies [13] [14]:

• Participant Recruitment: Enroll symptomatic individuals presenting at testing centers. Consent is obtained prior to sample collection.
• Paired Sample Collection: A trained healthcare worker collects samples from the same participant using different swabs. To prevent cross-contamination, the NP swab is collected first from one nostril and placed into Universal Transport Medium (UTM) for the reference test (e.g., RT-PCR). This is followed by the collection of a second NP swab from the other nostril for the index test (e.g., Ag-RDT), and finally, an AN swab is collected from both nostrils according to the manufacturer's instructions.
• Laboratory Testing:
  • NAAT/RT-PCR: RNA is extracted from the UTM samples and tested using approved kits (e.g., TaqPath COVID-19 on a QuantStudio 5 thermocycler). A result is typically considered positive if two or more viral target genes amplify with a Ct value ≤40 [14].
  • Antigen Test (QAT or Ag-RDT): Tests are performed on automated systems (e.g., Lumipulse for QAT) or via lateral flow according to the manufacturer's IFU. Results are often read by two blinded operators to minimize bias [13] [14].
• Data Analysis:
  • Sensitivity and Specificity: The sensitivity and specificity of the index test (e.g., AN swab Ag-RDT) are calculated against the reference standard (NP swab RT-PCR).
  • Viral Load Correlation: Ct values from RT-PCR and antigen levels from QAT are used as surrogate measures of viral load. The relationship between these values and test sensitivity is analyzed, often demonstrating a strong negative correlation (e.g., r = -0.88 between NS antigen levels and NS Ct values) [13].
  • Statistical Analysis: Agreement between swab types is assessed using metrics like Cohen’s kappa (κ), and differences in viral load measures are tested for statistical significance using paired t-tests or non-parametric equivalents.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents

The following table catalogues essential reagents and tools used in the featured studies for investigating viral replication and diagnostic performance.

Table 2: Key research reagent solutions for viral replication and detection studies.

Reagent / Tool	Function in Research	Specific Examples
Recombinant Reporter Viruses	Visualizing and quantifying viral replication in vitro and in vivo.	rHRSV expressing mCherry or firefly luciferase (Luc) [12].
Flocked Swabs	Optimal sample collection from mucosal surfaces for improved cell and viral particle elution.	Copan FLOQSwabs [13] [14].
Universal Transport Medium (UTM)	Preservation of viral integrity and nucleic acids during sample transport and storage.	Copan UTM [13] [14].
RT-PCR Assays & Reagents	Gold-standard detection and quantification of viral RNA with high sensitivity.	TaqPath COVID-19 (ThermoFisher); Ampdirect 2019-nCoV Detection Kit (Shimadzu) [13] [14].
Quantitative Antigen Test (QAT)	Rapid, automated quantification of viral antigen, correlating with viral load.	Lumipulse Presto SARS-CoV-2 Ag [13].
Cell Lines for Virus Culture	Propagation of viruses for research, assay development, and vaccine production.	HEp-2 cells for RSV [12]; BSRT7/5 cells for recombinant virus rescue [12].

The replication of respiratory viruses like RSV follows a distinct spatiotemporal pattern within the respiratory tract, initiating in the upper airways. This biological reality fundamentally shapes diagnostic strategy. The collective data indicate that NP swabs, which sample the nasopharyngeal epithelium—a primary site of early replication—remain the most sensitive option for definitive diagnosis. However, the robust performance of AN swabs, particularly in individuals with high viral loads or during the early symptomatic phase, solidifies their role as a powerful tool for public health screening and surveillance. The choice between these sampling methods should be guided by a balance of diagnostic needs: maximum sensitivity for clinical diagnosis versus practical feasibility for widespread testing. Future research should directly validate these principles, derived largely from SARS-CoV-2 studies, in the specific context of RSV infection and its distinct replication kinetics.

Accurate detection of respiratory pathogens, including Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), fundamentally depends on proper specimen collection techniques. Within clinical and research settings, the anterior nares swab and nasopharyngeal swab represent two distinct methodological approaches for upper respiratory specimen collection, each with unique anatomical targets, performance characteristics, and practical considerations. The anterior nares swab, also referred to as a nasal swab, is designed to sample the anterior portion of the nasal cavity, specifically the nasal mucosa and vestibule located just inside the nostrils [16]. This method requires insertion of the swab approximately 0.5 to 0.75 inches into the nostril, followed by rotation along the nasal wall to collect cellular material and secretions [16].

In contrast, the nasopharyngeal swab targets the nasopharynx, the upper part of the throat behind the nose, requiring deeper insertion along a path parallel to the chin until resistance is met [16]. This more invasive procedure is considered the traditional standard for respiratory virus detection due to its proximity to areas of high viral replication. However, a growing body of research is systematically evaluating the diagnostic performance of the less invasive anterior nares swab, particularly within the context of RSV detection research, where understanding the sensitivity, specificity, and practical limitations of sampling methods is paramount for accurate incidence estimation and effective drug development.

Anatomical and Methodological Comparison

The fundamental differences between these two swabbing techniques are rooted in their anatomical targets and the procedures required to reach them.

• Anterior Nares Swab: This method samples the nasal mucosa and vestibule of the anterior nasal cavity. The swab is typically inserted 0.5-0.75 inches (1.3-1.9 cm) into the nostril. The recommended technique involves rotating the swab against the sides of the nasal wall for 10-15 seconds in one nostril, then repeating the process in the other nostril using the same swab [16]. Its relative simplicity and minimal discomfort make it highly suitable for self-collection and use in pediatric populations [17].

• Nasopharyngeal Swab: This technique aims to collect a sample from the nasopharynx, which is situated behind the nose and above the soft palate. To reach this area, a flexible, mini-tipped swab is inserted through the nostril along a path parallel to the chin until resistance is encountered (approximately halfway from the nostril to the ear) [16] [18]. The swab is then rotated several times to collect a sample before being withdrawn with a gentle rotating motion. Due to the depth of insertion and potential for patient discomfort, this procedure should be performed by a trained healthcare professional [16].

Performance Data in Respiratory Virus Detection

Extensive research has compared the diagnostic accuracy of anterior nares and nasopharyngeal swabs across multiple respiratory viruses. The following tables summarize key quantitative findings from recent studies, providing a comparative overview of their performance in detecting SARS-CoV-2, RSV, and influenza.

Table 1: Comparative sensitivity of anterior nares vs. nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection using rapid antigen tests (Ag-RDTs)

Ag-RDT Brand	Swab Type	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	Inter-Rater Reliability (κ)	Study Details
Sure-Status	Nasopharyngeal (NP)	83.9 (95% CI: 76.0–90.0)	98.8 (95% CI: 96.6–9.8)	0.918	Prospective evaluation of 372 symptomatic participants [14]
	Anterior Nares (AN)	85.6 (95% CI: 77.1–91.4)	99.2 (95% CI: 97.1–99.9)
Biocredit	Nasopharyngeal (NP)	81.2 (95% CI: 73.1–87.7)	99.0 (95% CI: 94.7–86.5)	0.833	Prospective evaluation of 232 symptomatic participants [14]
	Anterior Nares (AN)	79.5 (95% CI: 71.3–86.3)	100 (95% CI: 96.5–100)

Table 2: RSV detection performance across different specimen types and age groups

Population	Specimen Type	Sensitivity / Detection Rate	Context & Key Findings	Source
Hospitalized Adults	Nasopharyngeal (NP) Swab	47.2% (95% CI: 41.1–53.4)	RSV detection increased by 112% when using all specimen types vs. NP alone [19]
	Saliva	61.4% (95% CI: 55.4–67.5)	More sensitive than NP swab, particularly in cardiac cases [19]
	Sputum	70.1% (95% CI: 62.1–78.0)	Higher detection rate than NP swab [19]
	Serology (Paired)	73.0% (95% CI: 65.1–80.8)	Highest sensitivity among tested specimen types [19]
Children (Systematic Review)	NP/Nasal Swab RT-PCR	Highest sensitivity	Gold standard test; adding other specimens gave modest detection increases [20]
	Rapid Antigen Test (RADT)	74% pooled sensitivity	Compared to RT-PCR as reference [20]
Children (Prospective Study)	Novel Anterior Nasal Swab	96.2% PPA* vs. Combined Throat/Nasal	High acceptability, preferred by 84% of children for future testing [17]

*PPA: Positive Percentage Agreement

Table 3: Performance of anterior nasal swabs in a multiplexed setting (triple test for SARS-CoV-2, RSV, influenza)

Virus	Sensitivity (%) (All Ct values)	Sensitivity (%) (Ct < 32)	Specificity (%)	Study Population
SARS-CoV-2	88.9 (95% CI: 51.8–99.7)	100.0 (95% CI: 59.0–100.0)	100	263 children in emergency pediatrics unit [21]
RSV	79.1 (95% CI: 64.0–90.0)	87.2 (95% CI: 72.6–95.7)	100
Influenza	91.6 (95% CI: 84.1–96.3)	92.3 (95% CI: 84.8–96.9)	100

Detailed Experimental Protocols from Key Studies

To ensure reproducibility and critical evaluation of the data, this section outlines the methodologies of several pivotal studies cited in this guide.

This prospective diagnostic evaluation offers a robust template for comparative swab studies.

• Study Population and Setting: Symptomatic adults attending a community National Health Service drive-through COVID-19 test center were recruited. Two independent cohorts were established for evaluating two different Ag-RDT brands: Sure-Status (n=372) and Biocredit (n=232).
• Specimen Collection Protocol: Trained healthcare workers collected swabs in a specific sequence to minimize cross-contamination:
  • An NP swab was collected from one nostril and placed in Universal Transport Medium (UTM) for reference standard RT-qPCR testing.
  • A second NP swab was collected from the other nostril for the index Ag-RDT.
  • Finally, an AN swab was collected from both nostrils for the index Ag-RDT, following the manufacturer's instructions for use.
• Laboratory Analysis: RNA was extracted from the UTM samples and tested using the TaqPath COVID-19 RT-qPCR assay (ThermoFisher, UK). A result was considered positive if any two of the three SARS-CoV-2 target genes amplified with a cycle threshold (Ct) value ≤40. Viral loads were quantified using a standard curve of quantified in vitro-transcribed RNA.
• Index Test and Analysis: The Sure-Status and Biocredit Ag-RDTs were performed according to their respective instructions. Results were read by two blinded operators, with a third acting as a tiebreaker in case of discrepancy. Test line intensity was scored on a quantitative scale (1-10). Sensitivity, specificity, and Cohen's kappa (κ) for agreement between swab types were calculated against the RT-qPCR reference standard.

This study provides a methodology for assessing the comprehensive detection rate of a respiratory virus.

• Study Population: Adults aged ≥40 years hospitalized with acute respiratory illness (ARI) were prospectively enrolled across seven US and Canadian hospitals through active surveillance during RSV seasons.
• Specimen Collection: At enrollment, a study NPS was obtained alongside at least one other specimen type: saliva, sputum, or acute serum. Convalescent serum was collected at a follow-up visit 30-60 days later. Every effort was made to collect specimens concurrently, ideally within 24 hours of hospitalization.
• Laboratory Testing:
  • Respiratory Specimens: Tested for RSV by RT-PCR using either the ARIES Luminex FluA/B/RSV panel (US sites) or a laboratory-developed RT-PCR respiratory virus panel (Canadian sites).
  • Serology: Acute and convalescent sera were tested for antibodies against non-vaccine RSV antigens using a Luminex-based immunoassay. A 4-fold rise in antibody titers between paired sera indicated a recent RSV infection.
• Case Definition and Analysis: A participant was considered RSV-positive if any study specimen (NPS, saliva, sputum, or serology) tested positive. The percentage increase in RSV detection was calculated by comparing the prevalence based on NPS alone to the prevalence based on NPS plus other specimen types. Sensitivity by specimen type was calculated using a composite reference standard (positive by any specimen type).

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The following table catalogues critical reagents and materials required for conducting rigorous comparative studies on respiratory specimen collection, as derived from the analyzed methodologies.

Table 4: Key research reagents and materials for comparative swab studies

Reagent/Material	Function & Application in Research	Exemplars & Specifications
Flocked Nasopharyngeal Swabs	Collection of deep nasopharyngeal specimens; designed with mini-tips and flexible shafts for patient comfort and optimal cell collection.	Puritan 6" Sterile Mini-Tip Foam Swab w/Tapered Acetal Handle; HydraFlock 6" Sterile Ultrafine Flock Swab [16]
Flocked Anterior Nares Swabs	Collection of specimens from the anterior nasal cavity; available in various sizes (including pediatric) for self-collection or assisted collection.	Puritan 6” Sterile Foam Swab; HydraFlock 6” Sterile Elongated Flock Swab; Rhinoswab Junior (for children) [16] [17]
Universal Transport Media (UTM)	Preservation of viral integrity and nucleic acids during transport and storage of swab specimens.	Copan UTM (Copan Diagnostics, Italy) [14] [22]
RNA Extraction Kits	Isolation of high-quality viral RNA from clinical specimens prior to molecular detection.	QIAamp 96 Virus QIAcube HT kit (Qiagen), Maxwell HT Viral TNA Kit (Promega) [14] [22]
RT-qPCR Assays & Reagents	Gold-standard detection and quantification of viral RNA with high sensitivity and specificity.	TaqPath COVID-19 RT-qPCR (ThermoFisher), Luna Universal Probe One-Step RT q-PCR kit (New England Biolabs) [14] [22]
Rapid Antigen Tests (Ag-RDTs)	Rapid, point-of-care detection of viral antigens; used for evaluating the clinical performance of different swab types.	Sure-Status COVID-19 Antigen Card Test (PMC, India), Biocredit COVID-19 Antigen Test (RapiGEN, South Korea) [14]
Multiplex Respiratory Panels	Simultaneous detection of multiple respiratory pathogens from a single specimen, efficient for syndrome-based surveillance.	AusDiagnostics Respiratory Pathogens 16-well assay, Laboratory-developed multiplex RT-PCR panels [22] [17]

The body of evidence demonstrates that while nasopharyngeal swabs remain a highly sensitive collection method, anterior nares swabs offer a diagnostically robust and logistically advantageous alternative for detecting RSV and other respiratory viruses. The choice between these methods involves a strategic trade-off between diagnostic sensitivity, patient comfort, and operational feasibility. For RSV research, particularly in pediatric populations or community-based settings, anterior nares swabs present a compelling option due to their high acceptability and comparable performance to nasopharyngeal sampling in many contexts, especially when paired with highly sensitive molecular detection methods like RT-PCR. Furthermore, findings indicating that RSV detection in adults can be significantly underestimated by nasopharyngeal swabs alone underscore the importance of a multi-specimen approach for accurate incidence estimation in epidemiological studies and clinical trials. Future research should continue to optimize anterior nares swab design and collection protocols to maximize specimen quality and further bridge the sensitivity gap with nasopharyngeal sampling.

This guide objectively compares the performance of anterior nares (nasal) swabs to alternative respiratory specimen collection methods for the detection of Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), with a focus on patient tolerability, safety, and suitability for self-collection within research on specificity and sensitivity.

Comparative Performance Data for RSV Detection

The following tables summarize key quantitative data from recent studies, comparing the diagnostic accuracy of anterior nasal swabs (ANS) to other common collection methods and outlining their high patient acceptability.

Table 1: Diagnostic Accuracy of Anterior Nares Swabs vs. Other Methods

Comparison	Study Population	Key Metric for RSV	Performance of Anterior Nares Swab	Reference Standard
ANS vs. Combined Throat/Nasal (CTN) Swab [17]	Children (5-18 years) with symptoms	Positive Percent Agreement (PPA)	96.2% (95% CI: 91.8–98.3%)	Combined Throat & Anterior Nasal (CTN) Swab
		Negative Percent Agreement (NPA)	99.8% (95% CI: 99.6–99.9%)
Self-collected Oral-Nasal vs. Nasopharyngeal (NP) Swab [22]	Adults in Emergency Department	Sensitivity	75.0% (95% CI: 0.43–0.95)	Healthcare provider-collected Nasopharyngeal (NP) Swab
		Specificity	99.0% (95% CI: 0.93–1.00)
Rapid Antigen Test (using ANS) vs. RT-PCR [21]	Children in Emergency Department	Sensitivity (vs. RT-PCR with Ct <32)	87.2% (95% CI: 72.6–95.7)	Multiplex RT-PCR

Table 2: Patient Tolerability and Preference for Swab Types

Metric	Anterior Nares Swab (ANS)	Combined Throat/Nasal (CTN) Swab	Study Context
High Comfort Level [17]	90% of children found it "extremely comfortable" or only a "little uncomfortable"	48% of children found it "extremely comfortable" or only a "little uncomfortable"	Prospective study in a pediatric hospital (n=249)
Future Preference [17]	87% (208/240) of children/parents indicated a preference for ANS for future testing.	N/A
Self-Collection Feasibility [23]	Adult participants reported no (52.4%) or little (33.3%) difficulty self-collecting nasal swabs; 100% felt comfortable with the procedure.	N/A	Home-based feasibility study (n=21 households)

Detailed Experimental Methodologies

The key studies cited above employed the following rigorous experimental protocols.

Pediatric Comparison of a Novel Anterior Nasal Swab vs. Standard Swab

Study Design and Participants: A prospective, randomized study was conducted at a tertiary pediatric hospital. It included 249 symptomatic children aged 5–18 years who were tested with both the novel flocked ANS (Rhinoswab Junior) and the standard combined throat and anterior nasal (CTN) swab in a randomized order [17].

Sample Collection:

• Index Test (Novel ANS): The ANS was available in three sizes based on age. It was either self-administered by the participant or assisted by a parent/guardian or nurse. The swab was inserted for 60 seconds, followed by side-to-side movements in the anterior nasal area for 15 seconds [17].
• Reference Standard (CTN Swab): A study nurse collected the CTN swab using a flocked swab. The protocol involved swabbing the tonsillar beds and back of the throat for 3–5 seconds, followed by bilateral nasal insertion (1-2 cm or until resistance was met) and rotating the swab 5 times against the nasal wall [17].

Laboratory Analysis: All samples were eluted into phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). ANS samples were vortexed and pulse-spun, while CTN samples were swirled. Nucleic acid extraction was performed on a Roche MagNA Pure 96 system. Samples were tested using the AusDiagnostics Respiratory Pathogens 16-well assay, a multiplex RT-PCR panel that includes RSV A and B [17].

Acceptability Evaluation: An electronic survey administered after swab collection used a 5-point Likert scale or the Wong-Baker FACES scale for children to self-report comfort. Parents and nurses also rated the observed comfort level of the child [17].

Evaluation of a Self-Collected Oral-Nasal Swab

Study Population: The study included consecutive adults presenting to an Emergency Department ambulatory zone with suspected viral upper respiratory tract infections. Participants provided a self-collected oral-nasal swab in addition to the provider-collected nasopharyngeal swab taken as part of routine care [22].

Sample Collection:

• Self-collected Oral-Nasal Swab: Individuals were instructed to self-swab the anterior aspect of both nares, the buccal mucosa, and the tongue using a disposable flocked swab [22].
• Provider-collected Nasopharyngeal Swab: Collected by a healthcare professional as the reference standard [22].

Laboratory Analysis: All swab samples were placed into Universal Transport Media. A 160-µl aliquot was extracted using an automated instrument, and viral detection was performed using a laboratory-developed real-time RT-PCR assay for Influenza A, Influenza B, and RSV. A cycle threshold (Ct) below 37 was considered positive [22].

Feasibility of Ambient Temperature, Self-Collected Swabs

Study Participants: The study involved 21 households, each with one adult and one child. The aim was to assess the feasibility of self-collection at home [23].

Sample Collection:

• Self-Collection: Adult participants were provided with a kit containing DNA/RNA Shield HydraFlock swabs and collection vials. After reviewing instructions and a video, they collected one nasal swab from themselves and one from their child, sampling both nares with a single swab [23].
• Staff-Collection: After participant collection, a trained research staff member collected a duplicate sample from each individual [23].

Viral Detection and Analysis: RNA was extracted from swabs, and cDNA libraries were prepared for shotgun RNA sequencing on an Illumina NextSeq500 instrument. Respiratory viruses were detected bioinformatically using the Explify Platform, enabling untargeted pathogen detection and viral genome analysis without a cold chain [23].

Research Reagent Solutions

The table below details key materials and reagents used in the featured experiments that are essential for researchers replicating or designing similar studies.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Item	Specific Examples	Function in Research Context
Flocked ANS	Rhinoswab Junior (Rhinomed) [17]; Puritan HydraFlock swabs [23]	Designed for efficient specimen collection and release from the anterior nares; specialized designs can aid in distraction and self-collection.
Multiplex RT-PCR Assays	AusDiagnostics Respiratory Pathogens 16-well assay [17]; Laboratory-developed RT-qPCR assays [22]	Gold-standard for sensitive and specific detection of RSV and other respiratory pathogens from a single sample.
Nucleic Acid Extraction Systems	Roche MagNA Pure 96 system with MagNA Pure 96 DNA and Viral NA Small Volume Kit [17]; Hamilton Star automated extraction instrument with Maxwell HT Viral TNA Kit [22]	Automated, high-quality purification of viral nucleic acids from swab samples prior to amplification.
Transport Medium/Stabilizer	Universal Transport Media (Copan) [22]; DNA/RNA Shield (Zymo Research) [23]	Preserves viral RNA integrity during transport and storage, with some formulations enabling ambient temperature transport.
Next-Generation Sequencing Kits	Trio RNA-Seq kit (NuGEN); ZymoBIOMICS DNA/RNA Miniprep kit [23]	Enable untargeted, sequence-based detection and genomic characterization of respiratory viruses.

Experimental Workflow and Logical Relationships

The following diagram illustrates the logical pathway and key decision points established by recent research for selecting an anterior nares swab methodology based on the study's primary objectives.

Research Selection Pathway

Diagnostic Platforms and Workflow Integration for Anterior Nares RSV Testing

The accurate and timely detection of respiratory pathogens is a cornerstone of effective public health response and clinical management. For years, the nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) has been considered the gold standard specimen for respiratory virus detection via reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). However, the discomfort and technical challenges associated with proper NPS collection have driven the exploration of less invasive alternatives. The anterior nares swab, which samples the anterior part of the nasal cavity, has emerged as a promising candidate, particularly for its suitability in self-collection and pediatric populations. This guide objectively compares the performance of RT-PCR assays using anterior nares specimens against traditional sampling methods and other diagnostic approaches, with a specific focus on respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) detection within the broader context of respiratory pathogen diagnostics.

Performance Characteristics: Anterior Nares vs. Traditional Specimens

The diagnostic performance of anterior nares specimens has been extensively evaluated against established standards like nasopharyngeal swabs. The following table summarizes key performance metrics for anterior nares swabs in detecting various respiratory viruses across multiple studies.

Table 1: Performance Characteristics of Anterior Nares Swabs for Respiratory Virus Detection by RT-PCR

Virus Detected	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	Reference Standard	Study Population	Citation
Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV)	79.1 (64.0–90.0)	100	Multiplex RT-PCR (Nasopharyngeal)	Pediatric (Emergency Department)	[21]
RSV (with Ct < 32)	87.2 (72.6–95.7)	100	Multiplex RT-PCR (Nasopharyngeal)	Pediatric (Emergency Department)	[21]
SARS-CoV-2	82.4 (72–93)	-	RT-PCR (Various)	Adults (Confirmed Positive)	[24]
SARS-CoV-2	88.9 (51.8–99.7)	100	Multiplex RT-PCR (Nasopharyngeal)	Pediatric (Emergency Department)	[21]
Influenza A & B	91.6 (84.1–96.3)	100	Multiplex RT-PCR (Nasopharyngeal)	Pediatric (Emergency Department)	[21]
Multiple Respiratory Viruses*	96.2 (91.8–98.3)	99.8 (99.6–99.9)	Combined Throat & Anterior Nasal Swab	Pediatric (Symptomatic, 5-18 years)	[17]

*The study on multiple respiratory viruses reported Positive Percentage Agreement (PPA) and Negative Percentage Agreement (NPA) instead of sensitivity and specificity. The panel included Influenza A/B, RSV, SARS-CoV-2, Adenovirus, Rhinovirus, and other common respiratory viruses.

The data demonstrate that anterior nares specimens maintain high specificity, often at 100%, across multiple viruses and study populations [21] [17]. Sensitivity is consistently strong, particularly for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza, and shows further improvement in cases with higher viral loads (lower Ct values) [21]. One multicenter pediatric study found that a novel flocked anterior nasal swab had a 96.2% positive agreement with the standard combined throat and nasal swab for a broad panel of respiratory viruses, indicating its suitability as a less invasive alternative [17].

Comparative Analysis of Swab Types and Collection Sites

The choice of sampling site is a critical determinant of diagnostic accuracy. The following table provides a head-to-head comparison of different upper respiratory specimen types based on a prospective clinical study.

Table 2: Head-to-Head Comparison of Upper Respiratory Specimen Types for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR

Specimen Type	Sensitivity (%)	Mean Ct Value (N gene)	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
Oropharyngeal Swab (OPS)	94.1	26.63	High sensitivity, comparable to NPS; better patient tolerance than NPS.	Requires patient cooperation; potential for gag reflex.
Nasopharyngeal Swab (NPS)	92.5	24.98	Considered the traditional gold standard; lower Ct values suggest higher viral load.	Technically challenging; significant patient discomfort.
Anterior Nasal Swab	82.4	30.60	Minimal discomfort; suitable for self-collection.	Lower sensitivity and higher Ct values than OPS/NPS.
Combined OPS/Anterior Nasal	96.1	-	Significantly higher sensitivity than nasal swab alone.	Requires two sampling procedures.

This comparative data reveals that while the anterior nasal swab alone has the lowest sensitivity, it remains a valuable tool, especially when used in combination with an oropharyngeal swab, which increases sensitivity to 96.1% [24]. The higher Ct values associated with anterior nasal swabs (mean Ct 30.60) compared to NPS (mean Ct 24.98) indicate a lower viral concentration in the anterior nares, which explains the observed differences in sensitivity [24]. A separate study confirmed that self-collected anterior nares specimens were more sensitive than tongue swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-PCR, validating their use in self-testing protocols [15].

RSV Detection: A Focus on Anterior Nares Performance

Within the landscape of respiratory viruses, RSV presents a particular diagnostic challenge due to its prevalence in pediatric populations where nasopharyngeal sampling is most difficult.

Performance in Pediatric Populations

A study evaluating a rapid antigen triplex test for SARS-CoV-2, RSV, and influenza using self-collected anterior nasal swabs in a pediatric emergency department found an RSV sensitivity of 79.1% (95% CI 64.0–90.0) and specificity of 100% compared to multiplex RT-PCR [21]. This performance improved significantly for samples with higher viral loads, with sensitivity rising to 87.2% (95% CI 72.6–95.7) for RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values below 32 [21]. This underscores that anterior nares specimens are highly effective for detecting RSV in children during the acute, high viral load phase of infection.

Comparative Meta-Analysis of RSV Tests

A comprehensive meta-analysis of RSV rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) provides crucial context for the performance of anterior nares sampling. The analysis, which included 71 studies, found that the pooled sensitivity of RSV RADTs was significantly higher in children (81% [95% CI 78%, 84%]) compared to adults (29% [95% CI 11% to 48%]) [25]. This stark difference highlights the importance of considering the patient's age when interpreting results from anterior nares specimens, especially for RSV. The same meta-analysis also found that test sensitivity was poorest when using RT-PCR as a reference standard compared to immunofluorescence, indicating that the high sensitivity of the reference method can make the index test appear less sensitive by comparison [25].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

To ensure reproducibility and provide a clear framework for evaluation, this section outlines standardized methodologies for key experiments cited in the performance comparison.

Protocol: Anterior Nares Specimen Collection for RT-PCR

• Sample Collection: A flexible minitip flocked swab is inserted approximately 1–2 cm into the nasal cavity (or until resistance is met at the turbinates) and brushed along the nasal septum and inferior nasal concha. The swab is rotated 3-5 times against the nasal wall to ensure adequate sampling of the nasal epithelium. The procedure is repeated in the other nostril using the same swab [24] [15].
• Sample Transport: Immediately after collection, the swab is placed into a sterile tube containing universal transport media (UTM) or viral transport media (VTM). The swab shaft is snapped or broken off at the score line, and the tube cap is secured tightly.
• Storage and Transport: Specimens should be stored at 2–8°C and transported to the laboratory within 72 hours. If a delay exceeding 72 hours is anticipated, specimens should be frozen at -70°C or below and transported on dry ice [26] [17].
• Laboratory Processing: RNA is extracted from the transport media using automated or manual extraction systems (e.g., Roche MagNA Pure). The eluted RNA is then analyzed by RT-PCR using approved assay kits (e.g., Cepheid Xpert Xpress, Seegene Allplex, AusDiagnostics Respiratory Pathogens panel) following manufacturer instructions [26] [24] [17].

Protocol: Comparison Study Design for Swab Performance

A robust head-to-head comparison of different swab types should adhere to the following design:

• Participant Recruitment: Enroll symptomatic individuals presenting to clinical settings (e.g., emergency departments, testing centers). Obtain informed consent.
• Paired Sample Collection: Collect multiple swab types from each participant during the same clinical visit. The order of collection should be randomized to minimize bias. A trained healthcare professional should collect the gold-standard nasopharyngeal swab, while anterior nasal swabs can be self-collected or healthcare-worker-collected [24] [17].
• Blinding: Laboratory personnel should be blinded to the sample type and the results of the other tests to prevent interpretive bias.
• Reference Standard Testing: All samples should be tested using the same RT-PCR assay platform to ensure comparability. The result from the nasopharyngeal swab is typically used as the reference standard for calculating sensitivity and specificity of the other sample types [24].
• Data Analysis: Calculate sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for each swab type against the reference standard. Compare cycle threshold (Ct) values as a surrogate for viral load across different sample types using appropriate statistical tests (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank test) [24].

Experimental Workflow and Logical Relationships

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow for evaluating the performance of a novel anterior nares swab in a clinical study.

Diagram 1: Performance Evaluation Workflow for Anterior Nares Swabs.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details essential materials and reagents required for conducting robust comparative studies on anterior nares specimens.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Comparative Swab Studies

Item	Function/Description	Example Products/Catalog Numbers
Flocked Anterior Nares Swab	Specimen collection from anterior nares. Designed for optimal cell collection and elution.	Rhinoswab Junior [17], Copan FLOQSwabs [15]
Universal Transport Media (UTM)	Preserves viral integrity and nucleic acids during transport and storage.	Copan UTM, BD Universal Viral Transport Media (UVT) [27]
Automated Nucleic Acid Extraction System	Isolates high-purity viral RNA from clinical specimens for downstream molecular assays.	Roche MagNA Pure 96 [17], STARlet (Seegene) [24]
Multiplex RT-PCR Assay Kits	Simultaneous detection and differentiation of multiple respiratory pathogens in a single reaction.	Cepheid Xpert Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus [27], AusDiagnostics Respiratory Pathogens 16-well assay [17], BioFire Respiratory Panel 2.1 plus [26]
Positive Control Material	Validates assay performance and ensures consistency across test runs.	ZeptoMetrix NATSARS(CoV2)-ERC [28]

The accurate and timely detection of Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) from anterior nares swabs represents a critical challenge in clinical virology, particularly for vulnerable populations such as infants, older adults, and immunocompromised individuals. RSV infection causes a substantial global disease burden, being the primary viral agent responsible for acute lower respiratory tract infections in children under five years old [29]. Traditionally, laboratory confirmation of RSV has relied on methods such as viral culture, rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs), immunofluorescence assays, and reverse transcription quantitative real-time PCR (RT-qPCR) [29] [30]. However, each method presents significant limitations: viral culture is time-consuming (5-7 days) with low sensitivity (<50%), while RADTs and IF assays suffer from variable sensitivity (50%-80%) and subjective interpretation [29]. Although RT-qPCR offers high sensitivity and has become the gold standard, its requirement for sophisticated thermal cycling equipment, trained personnel, and controlled laboratory environments limits its deployment in resource-limited settings and point-of-care scenarios [31] [29].

The limitations of traditional methods have accelerated the development of isothermal amplification technologies that can amplify nucleic acids at constant temperatures without the need for complex instrumentation. Among these emerging techniques, Reverse Transcription Recombinase-Aided Amplification (RT-RAA) has demonstrated remarkable potential for decentralized diagnostics. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of RT-RAA against other diagnostic alternatives, with a specific focus on performance metrics for RSV detection from anterior nares swabs, enabling researchers and drug development professionals to evaluate its applicability within their specific research and clinical contexts.

Technology Comparison: Performance Metrics for Anterior Nares Swab Detection

The evaluation of any diagnostic technology requires a multidimensional analysis of its operational characteristics and performance metrics. The following table provides a direct comparison of RT-RAA against other common methods for RSV detection, with particular attention to application with anterior nares swab specimens.

Table 1: Comprehensive Comparison of RSV Detection Methods for Anterior Nares Swab Specimens

Detection Method	Principle	Time to Result	Analytical Sensitivity	Reported Sensitivity/Specificity for RSV	Equipment Needs	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
RT-RAA	Isothermal amplification using recombinase, SSB, and polymerase	15-30 minutes [32]	159 copies/reaction (95% CI) [29]	100% sensitivity, 100% specificity vs RT-qPCR (n=265) [29]	Portable heater, fluorescent reader or blue light visualizer [33]	Rapid, high sensitivity, RNA extraction-free capability, portable	Requires primer design optimization, newer technology
RT-qPCR	Target amplification via thermal cycling	1-4 hours [34]	Varies by kit (~10-100 copies/reaction)	Gold standard reference method	Thermal cycler, real-time detection system	High sensitivity, quantitative capability, established protocols	Expensive equipment, requires trained personnel, central lab
RT-RPA	Isothermal amplification similar to RT-RAA with different recombinase source	10-15 minutes [31]	Similar to RT-RAA [31]	85.53% sensitivity (with N and RdRP targets) [31]	Portable heater, detection device	Rapid, portable, low energy requirements	Slightly lower sensitivity than RT-RAA in some studies
LAMP	Isothermal amplification with 4-6 primers creating stem-loop structures	30-60 minutes [35]	Comparable to PCR [36]	96.6% sensitivity, 97.6% specificity (meta-analysis) [36]	Water bath or block heater	Visual detection possible, resistant to inhibitors	Complex primer design, more primers required
Rapid Antigen Tests	Immuno-chromatographic detection of viral antigens	10-30 minutes	100-1000 times less sensitive than PCR [29]	93.8% sensitivity vs RT-RAA (100%) [29]	None	Low cost, simple operation, truly point-of-care	Lower sensitivity, especially in adults

The data reveal RT-RAA's distinctive position as a technology combining the sensitivity of molecular methods with the operational simplicity required for point-of-care applications. A 2025 study demonstrated that RT-RAA exhibited significantly higher sensitivity (100%) compared to rapid antigen detection tests (93.8%) when testing clinical samples [29]. Furthermore, the same study reported 100% concordance with RT-qPCR results across 265 clinical samples, achieving a Kappa value of 1, indicating perfect agreement between the methods [29]. This performance is particularly notable given that the RT-RAA assay was implemented in an RNA extraction-free format, substantially reducing processing time and complexity [29].

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Detailed RT-RAA Experimental Methodology

The implementation of RT-RAA for RSV detection involves a structured workflow that can be adapted for anterior nares swab specimens. The following diagram illustrates the complete experimental process:

Diagram 1: RT-RAA Experimental Workflow

Primer and Probe Design

The foundation of a successful RT-RAA assay lies in the careful design of primers and probes targeting conserved regions of the RSV genome. Researchers typically target stable genomic regions, such as the matrix (M) gene, which demonstrates high conservation across RSV strains [29]. The design process involves:

• Sequence Alignment: Retrieve RSV genome sequences from databases such as GenBank and perform multiple sequence alignment using software like DNA STAR to identify conserved regions [29].
• Primer Design: Design forward and reverse primers of 30-35 nucleotides in length using specialized software such as SnapGene [29]. The primers must be specific to the target region without significant self-complementarity or dimer formation.
• Probe Selection: For real-time detection, design an exo probe containing a fluorophore (e.g., FAM) and quencher (e.g., BHQ1) separated by a modified thymine residue (THF) that is cleaved during amplification [33]. The probe must be fully complementary to the target sequence in the conserved region.

Reaction Setup and Conditions

The RT-RAA reaction employs a precise combination of enzymes and reagents that enable isothermal amplification:

• Reaction Composition: A standard 50 μL reaction contains lyophilized primer/probe mixtures, reaction buffer, magnesium acetate (2.5 μL of 280 mM), and 5 μL of extracted nucleic acid or direct sample lysate [32].
• Amplification Conditions: The reaction is incubated at a constant temperature between 37-42°C for 15-20 minutes in a portable heating device [32] [33]. No thermal cycling is required.
• Detection Methods: Results can be monitored in real-time using portable fluorescence detectors or through end-point detection using a portable blue light device (480 nm excitation) for visual assessment [29] [33].

Molecular Mechanism of RT-RAA

The exceptional performance of RT-RAA stems from its unique biochemical mechanism, which mimics natural DNA recombination processes. The following diagram illustrates the molecular workflow:

Diagram 2: RT-RAA Molecular Mechanism

The RT-RAA mechanism employs three key enzymes that operate in concert at a constant temperature. First, recombinase enzymes (UvsX and UvsY) form complexes with specific primers, enabling these primers to search for and invade homologous sequences in the target RNA/DNA template [29]. Following strand invasion, single-stranded DNA-binding proteins (SSB) stabilize the displaced DNA strands, preventing reannealing and maintaining the template in an accessible state for primer binding [29] [33]. Finally, a strand-displacing DNA polymerase binds to the 3' end of the primer and initiates synthesis, extending the DNA chain while displacing the downstream strand [33]. This process cycles continuously, leading to exponential amplification of the target sequence without the need for denaturation at high temperatures.

Research Reagent Solutions and Essential Materials

Successful implementation of RT-RAA assays requires specific reagent components that enable the isothermal amplification process. The following table details the essential research reagents and their functions in the RT-RAA reaction system:

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for RT-RAA Assay Development

Reagent Component	Function in Reaction	Specific Examples	Considerations for Assay Development
Recombinase Enzymes	Forms complexes with primers to enable strand invasion and homologous recombination	UvsX, UvsY [29]	Bacterial/fungal derived for RT-RAA; phage-derived for RT-RPA [31]
DNA Polymerase	Extends primers from 3' end with strand-displacing activity	Bsu DNA polymerase [33]	Must have strong strand displacement activity without requiring denaturation
Single-Strand Binding Protein (SSB)	Stabilizes displaced DNA strands to prevent reannealing	E. coli SSB [29]	Critical for maintaining template accessibility during amplification
Reverse Transcriptase	Converts RNA template to complementary DNA for amplification	AMV-RT or M-MLV [35]	Must function optimally at the isothermal temperature (37-42°C)
Primers and Probes	Provide target specificity for amplification	Specific to RSV M gene [29]	Typically 30-35 nt; probes contain FAM/BHQ1 with THF spacer [33]
Reaction Buffer	Provides optimal ionic and pH conditions for enzyme activity	Magnesium acetate, crowding agents, ATP [34]	Magnesium concentration particularly critical for reaction efficiency

These reagent components are commercially available in lyophilized formats that enhance stability and simplify assay setup. The lyophilized reagents can be packaged into single-tube formats, facilitating point-of-care applications by minimizing preparation steps [32] [34]. Furthermore, the development of specimen-specific master mixes optimized for different sample types (e.g., anterior nares swabs) can improve performance by including enhancers that counteract the effects of potential inhibitors present in clinical specimens [35].

RT-RAA technology represents a significant advancement in molecular diagnostics for RSV detection from anterior nares swabs, effectively bridging the sensitivity gap between laboratory-based PCR and rapid point-of-care tests. The experimental data demonstrate that RT-RAA achieves sensitivity and specificity equivalent to RT-qPCR while offering substantial advantages in speed, portability, and operational simplicity. The technology's compatibility with multiple detection formats—including real-time fluorescence, visual detection, and lateral flow assays—further enhances its adaptability across diverse research and clinical settings.

For researchers and drug development professionals, RT-RAA presents a versatile platform that supports both fundamental virology studies and applied diagnostic development. The ability to perform RNA extraction-free testing without compromising sensitivity makes it particularly valuable for rapid screening applications and resource-limited environments. As isothermal amplification technologies continue to evolve, RT-RAA stands out as a promising tool that could substantially impact RSV research, surveillance, and clinical management strategies.

The diagnostic landscape for respiratory viruses has undergone a transformative shift with the advancement of point-of-care molecular systems that deliver laboratory-quality results in dramatically reduced timeframes. The development of PCR platforms capable of detecting respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and other pathogens from anterior nares swabs in approximately 10 minutes represents a significant technological achievement with profound implications for clinical decision-making and public health responses [27]. This evaluation examines the performance characteristics, workflow efficiency, and experimental methodologies of emerging rapid PCR systems, with particular emphasis on their application for anterior nares swab-based RSV detection—a less invasive sampling method that shows increasing importance in pediatric and community settings [17] [37].

The integration of rapid molecular diagnostics at the point of care addresses critical limitations of traditional testing paradigms, including prolonged turnaround times, complex sample processing requirements, and the discomfort associated with nasopharyngeal sampling methods [17] [38]. As the diagnostic field continues to evolve beyond the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic, the performance metrics of these systems—particularly sensitivity, specificity, and workflow efficiency—have become essential parameters for researchers and clinicians selecting appropriate platforms for respiratory virus detection [39].

Performance Comparison of Rapid Point-of-Care Molecular Systems

The evaluation of point-care molecular systems requires comprehensive assessment of both analytical performance and operational characteristics. The following comparison examines available data on rapid PCR platforms with emphasis on their applicability for RSV detection using anterior nares swabs.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Rapid Molecular Diagnostic Systems for Respiratory Virus Detection

Platform/System	Time to Result	Respiratory Targets	Sensitivity	Specificity	Sample Type
AMDI Fast PCR Mini Respiratory Panel [27]	10 minutes	SARS-CoV-2, Flu A, Flu B, RSV	97.2% overall agreement (CI 96.4-97.9%)	99.7% (CI 99.4-99.9%)	Anterior nasal swab
Extraction-Free Rapid Cycle RT-PCR [40]	<20 minutes	SARS-CoV-2	97.6% (40/41 positive samples)	100% (40/40 negative samples)	Nasopharyngeal swab
Cepheid Xpert Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus [27]	~36 minutes	SARS-CoV-2, Flu A, Flu B, RSV	Used as comparator in AMDI study	Used as comparator in AMDI study	Anterior nasal swab
Novel Anterior Nasal Swab with Standard RT-PCR [17]	Varies with platform	Multiplex panel including RSV, influenza, SARS-CoV-2	96.2% (CI 91.8-98.3%) PPA	99.8% (CI 99.6-99.9%) NPA	Anterior nasal swab (vs. CTN)
QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel [37]	Varies with platform	Multiplex panel including RSV	95.7% within 24 hours of NP collection	Not specified	Anterior nasal swab (vs. NP)

Table 2: Operational Characteristics and Workflow Considerations

Platform/System	Hands-on Time	Sample Preparation	CLIA Waiver Status	Multiplexing Capacity	Connectivity
AMDI Fast PCR Mini Respiratory Panel [27]	<1 minute	Automated on disc	CLIA-waived sites used in study	4-plex	Cloud connectivity for data management
Extraction-Free Rapid Cycle RT-PCR [40]	Minimal (extraction-free)	Direct swab elution	Not specified	Single-plex (as described)	Not specified
Digital PCR Platforms [41]	Varies by system	Requires partitioning	Laboratory-based	Multiplex capable	Instrument-dependent
Standard Laboratory RT-PCR [17]	Significant	Manual extraction and purification	Not CLIA-waived	High-plex (16 targets)	Laboratory information systems

The AMDI Fast PCR system demonstrates how integrated design approaches can minimize hands-on time while maintaining excellent performance characteristics. In a multicenter clinical study comparing the 10-minute AMDI Fast PCR Mini Respiratory Panel to the Cepheid Xpert Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus test, researchers found 97.2% overall agreement across 1906 participants, with particularly strong performance for RSV detection [27]. Notably, out of 85 discrepant results (4.4% of total), 61 (72%) were associated with low viral load, suggesting that rapid platforms maintain sensitivity across clinically relevant viral concentrations [27].

Methodological Framework for Rapid PCR Evaluation

Sample Collection and Processing Protocols

The transition to anterior nares swabs for respiratory virus detection represents a significant advancement in patient comfort and accessibility, particularly in pediatric populations. Methodological studies indicate that properly collected anterior nasal swabs can demonstrate high agreement with combined throat and nasal (CTN) swabs, with one study reporting 96.2% positive percentage agreement and 99.8% negative percentage agreement when using standardized collection techniques [17].

The optimized protocol for anterior nares swab collection involves:

• Swab Insertion: Placement in the anterior nares for 60 seconds
• Sampling Technique: Side-to-side movements for 15 seconds to ensure adequate mucosal contact
• Transport Conditions: Placement in sterile closed containers without transport media for certain platforms
• Self-Collection Options: Viability of patient-administered or caregiver-administered sampling after proper instruction [17]

Comparative studies have demonstrated that anterior nares specimens show higher sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-PCR than tongue swab specimens, supporting their utility in respiratory virus testing programs [15]. When evaluating nasal swabs versus nasopharyngeal swabs in pediatric populations, sensitivity remains highest (95.7%) when sample collection occurs within 24 hours of symptom onset or nasopharyngeal sampling [37].

Rapid PCR Instrumentation and Reaction Optimization

The achievement of 10-minute PCR results requires innovations across multiple technical domains:

• Thermal Cycling Acceleration: Utilization of extreme RT-PCR protocols with optimized primer concentrations and reaction chemistry [40]
• Microfluidic Integration: Implementation of disposable disc-based systems that automate sample processing, reverse transcription, amplification, and detection [27]
• Direct Amplification Approaches: Development of extraction-free protocols that eliminate RNA purification steps without compromising sensitivity [40]

Advanced thermal cycling techniques employ innovative heating methods including Joule heating, thermoelectric heating, and plasmonic heating to achieve rapid temperature transitions while maintaining amplification efficiency [38]. The development of extraction-free protocols addresses substantial bottlenecks in molecular diagnostic workflows, with research demonstrating that direct amplification from swab eluates can maintain 97.6% agreement with standard methods while significantly reducing processing time [40].

Experimental Workflow for Rapid Respiratory Virus Detection

The following diagram illustrates the integrated workflow for anterior nares swab-based RSV detection using rapid PCR platforms:

This integrated workflow highlights how rapid PCR systems streamline the testing process from sample collection to result reporting. The automation of sample processing and analysis within disposable disc systems minimizes hands-on time while the cloud-based connectivity enables immediate result reporting and data management [27].

Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful implementation of rapid PCR platforms for anterior nares swab-based RSV detection requires specific reagents and materials optimized for speed and sensitivity.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Rapid PCR Development and Evaluation

Reagent/Material	Function	Performance Considerations
Anterior Nares Swabs (e.g., Rhinoswab Junior) [17]	Sample collection from anterior nares	Designed for reduced discomfort while maintaining diagnostic validity; available in pediatric and adult sizes
Proprietary Sample Buffer [27]	Sample transport and viral preservation	Maintains RNA stability while enabling direct amplification without extraction
Extraction-Free Master Mix [40]	Nucleic acid amplification without purification	Enables direct amplification from swab eluates; contains optimized enzyme concentrations and inhibitor-resistant components
Multiplex Primer/Probe Sets [27]	Target-specific amplification and detection	Designed for rapid cycling conditions; minimal cross-reactivity between channels
Microfluidic Test Discs/Cartridges [27]	Integrated sample processing and amplification	Automates fluid handling and thermal cycling; contains pre-loaded reagents
Positive Control Materials [40]	Assay validation and quality control	Includes viral RNA standards and inactivated virus preparations

The selection of appropriate swab types represents a critical consideration for anterior nares sampling. Comparative studies have indicated that flocked swabs and spun polyester swabs demonstrate similar effectiveness for anterior nasal RT-PCR testing, providing flexibility in sampling platform selection [15]. The movement toward extraction-free protocols has been facilitated by master mix formulations that tolerate inhibitors present in direct clinical samples while maintaining amplification efficiency [40].

Discussion: Implications for Research and Clinical Applications

Performance Considerations for RSV Detection

The evaluation of rapid PCR platforms must consider their specific performance characteristics for RSV detection, particularly when using anterior nares swabs. Traditional rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) for RSV demonstrate variable performance, with a comprehensive meta-analysis reporting 80% pooled sensitivity and 97% pooled specificity in pediatric populations [25]. These limitations highlight the importance of molecular methods for definitive RSV diagnosis, particularly in adult populations where RADT sensitivity decreases dramatically to approximately 29% [25].

The emergence of 10-minute PCR platforms addresses these limitations while providing the additional benefits of multiplex detection and quantitative potential. The integration of cloud connectivity for data management and result reporting further enhances their utility in both clinical and public health settings [27]. As respiratory virus surveillance networks consider expanding to include RSV, the availability of rapid, sensitive molecular methods will support more effective monitoring and response systems [42].

Technical Innovations Enabling Rapid PCR

The achievement of 10-minute PCR results represents a convergence of multiple technological advances:

• Microfluidic Integration: Disposable discs that automate sample processing and reduce reaction volumes [27]
• Thermal Cycling Acceleration: Advanced heating and cooling systems that minimize transition times between temperature steps [40] [38]
• Reaction Chemistry Optimization: Enhanced enzyme formulations that support faster polymerization rates without compromising fidelity [40]
• Direct Amplification Approaches: Elimination of nucleic acid extraction steps through optimized buffer systems and inhibitor-resistant enzymes [40]

These innovations collectively address the traditional limitations of PCR-based diagnostics while maintaining the gold standard sensitivity and specificity that define molecular methods [38]. The continuing evolution of digital PCR platforms offers additional potential for absolute quantification and improved detection of low-abundance targets, though these technologies currently face implementation challenges for point-of-care applications [41].

The development of 10-minute PCR platforms represents a significant advancement in point-of-care molecular diagnostics, offering unprecedented speed without compromising the sensitivity and specificity required for accurate respiratory virus detection. The performance characteristics of these systems, particularly when paired with anterior nares swab sampling, address critical needs in clinical management, public health surveillance, and pandemic preparedness.

The ongoing optimization of rapid PCR technologies continues to bridge the gap between laboratory-based testing and point-of-care applications, offering researchers and clinicians powerful tools for respiratory pathogen detection. As these platforms evolve, their integration into broader diagnostic ecosystems will undoubtedly expand, ultimately enhancing patient care through rapid, accurate, and accessible molecular testing.

Respiratory tract infections present a significant global health challenge, with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), SARS-CoV-2, and influenza viruses constituting major contributors to morbidity and mortality. Differentiating between these pathogens based solely on clinical symptoms remains challenging due to their highly overlapping clinical presentations, including fever, cough, and sore throat [43]. This diagnostic challenge has accelerated the development and adoption of multiplex molecular panels that can simultaneously detect and differentiate these viruses from a single specimen.

The context of specificity and sensitivity in anterior nares swab RSV detection research is particularly relevant given the ongoing efforts to develop less invasive sampling methods that maintain high diagnostic accuracy. While nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) have traditionally been the gold standard for respiratory virus detection [26], anterior nasal swabs (ANS) offer advantages in terms of patient comfort, ease of collection, and suitability for point-of-care testing. This comparison guide objectively evaluates the performance of various multiplex panels with particular emphasis on their application for anterior nares swab detection of RSV, SARS-CoV-2, and influenza viruses.

Performance Comparison of Multiplex Respiratory Panels

Analytical and Clinical Performance Metrics

The diagnostic performance of multiplex panels for respiratory virus detection is primarily evaluated through metrics including positive percent agreement (PPA), negative percent agreement (NPA), and limit of detection (LOD). Recent studies have demonstrated excellent performance across multiple platforms.

Table 1: Performance Metrics of Selected Multiplex Respiratory Panels

Platform/Assay	Target Pathogens	Sample Type	Positive Percent Agreement (PPA)	Negative Percent Agreement (NPA)	Limit of Detection (LOD)
LabTurbo Multiplex RT-PCR [43]	SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A/B, RSV	Nasopharyngeal swab	100% for all targets	100% for all targets	SARS-CoV-2: 8,333 copies/mLInfluenza A: 3,333 copies/mLInfluenza B: 6,667 copies/mLRSV: 8,333 copies/mL
AMDI Fast PCR Mini Respiratory Panel [27]	SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A/B, RSV	Anterior nasal swab	Overall: 97.2%Influenza A: 97.2%Influenza B: 99.7%RSV: 99.3%SARS-CoV-2: 99.3%	Not specified	Not specified
BioFire Respiratory Panel 2.1 plus [26]	SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A/B, RSV + 18 other targets	Anterior nasal swab	Comparable to NPS for influenza ASlight reductions for SARS-CoV-2 and RSV vs NPS	High agreement with comparator	Not specified

Sample Type Comparison: Anterior Nares vs. Nasopharyngeal Swabs

The choice of sample type significantly impacts detection sensitivity, particularly for RSV. Recent research has systematically compared anterior nares swabs with traditional nasopharyngeal swabs to evaluate their relative performance.

Table 2: Sample Type Comparison for Respiratory Virus Detection

Sample Type	Advantages	Disadvantages	RSV Detection Sensitivity	Overall Feasibility
Nasopharyngeal Swab (NPS)	Highest viral loadsEstablished gold standard [26]	Patient discomfortRequires trained healthcare workersResource-intensive	High sensitivityWell-established performance	Moderate: Requires clinical setting and trained staff
Anterior Nasal Swab (ANS)	Better patient toleranceEasier collectionSuitable for self-collectionIdeal for point-of-care [27]	Potentially lower viral load for some pathogens	Slightly reduced vs. NPS but still high [26]	High: Suitable for decentralized testing and point-of-care
Saliva	Non-invasiveWell-toleratedSuitable for serial testing	Variable compositionPotential inhibitorsProcessing requirements	Lower than anterior nasal and NPS [26]	Moderate: Balancing tolerance with processing needs

A 2024 study specifically evaluated anterior nasal samples and saliva samples in pediatric patients with respiratory symptoms, finding that anterior nasal samples were better tolerated than nasopharyngeal samples while maintaining high detection accuracy for respiratory viruses including RSV [26]. The research demonstrated that anterior nasal samples provided more accurate detection of respiratory viruses compared to saliva samples when both were compared to the reference standard (nasopharyngeal swab tested by fourplex PCR).

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Laboratory Protocols for Multiplex Detection

The core methodology underlying most multiplex respiratory panels centers on reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or quantitative RT-PCR (qRT-PCR) with target-specific primers and probes.

Protocol 1: LabTurbo Multiplex Real-time RT-PCR Assay [43]

• Sample Collection and Storage: Nasopharyngeal swab specimens are collected in universal transport medium and stored at -80°C until analysis. The integrity of specimens is maintained by documenting storage duration before evaluation.
• Nucleic Acid Extraction: RNA is extracted from clinical specimens using standardized extraction protocols. The process includes lysis, binding, washing, and elution steps to isolate high-quality RNA.
• Multiplex RT-PCR Setup: The one-step RT-PCR reaction is performed using the LabTurbo kit with specific primer and probe sets for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B, and RSV targets. The reaction mixture typically includes:
  • Reaction buffer (Tris-HCl, NaCl, MgCl₂)
  • Deoxynucleoside triphosphates (dNTPs)
  • Target-specific primers and fluorescence-labeled probes
  • Reverse transcriptase and DNA polymerase enzymes
  • Isolated RNA template
• Thermocycling Conditions: The protocol implements optimized cycling parameters:
  • Reverse transcription: 30 minutes at 42°C
  • Initial denaturation: 4 minutes at 95°C
  • Amplification: 40 cycles of 95°C for 1 minute (denaturation), 45°C for 1 minute (annealing), and 72°C for 3 minutes (extension)
• Detection and Analysis: Fluorescence signals are measured in real-time during each cycle. The cycle threshold (Ct) values are determined for each target, with positive results identified based on target-specific Ct cutoffs.

Protocol 2: AMDI Fast PCR Mini Respiratory Panel [27]

• Sample Collection: Anterior nasal swabs are collected in proprietary sample buffer. The collection order is alternated between consecutive patients to minimize potential bias when collecting comparative samples.
• Automated Processing: Samples are loaded into the Fast PCR MRP test disc, which is then placed into the Fast PCR Instrument. The system automatically processes the sample with less than 1 minute of hands-on time.
• Integrated Amplification and Detection: The disposable test disc integrates sample processing, reverse transcription, amplification, and detection in two different optical channels. The entire process is completed in less than 10 minutes.
• Result Interpretation: Cloud-based analysis software automatically interprets results, which are displayed on a connected tablet interface. The system provides detection of Flu A, Flu B, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2 RNA.

Experimental Workflow for Multiplex Respiratory Virus Detection

The following diagram illustrates the generalized workflow for multiplex detection of respiratory viruses from anterior nares and nasopharyngeal swabs:

Figure 1: Generalized workflow for multiplex detection of respiratory viruses from clinical specimens.

Technical Considerations and Assay Design

Primer and Probe Design for Multiplex Assays

The design of primers and probes represents a critical factor in the performance of multiplex respiratory panels. Effective assays must target conserved genomic regions while accommodating sequence diversity across viral strains.

For SARS-CoV-2 detection, well-established targets include the envelope (E), RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), and nucleocapsid (N) genes [44]. The E gene serves as a sensitive screening target, while the RdRp and N genes provide confirmatory targets with high specificity for SARS-CoV-2. One affordable multiplex approach utilizes primers and probes against the E gene and N gene (N1 and N2 targets), alongside a human cellular control (RPP30) and a viral spike-in control (Phocine Herpes Virus 1) to monitor sample quality and extraction efficiency [44].

For influenza A virus detection, primer design must account for potential genetic diversity. Assays often target the matrix (M) gene, which contains highly conserved regions across diverse virus isolates from multiple species [45]. This approach enables detection of influenza A viruses from birds, humans, pigs, horses, and seals, including all known subtypes. This broad reactivity is particularly important for surveillance of avian influenza viruses with zoonotic potential.

RSV detection in multiplex assays typically targets conserved regions of the nucleocapsid gene. Primer sets are designed to have similar melting temperatures (65-70°C) and higher G+C content to allow higher annealing temperatures during amplification, improving assay specificity [46]. This design principle facilitates the simultaneous detection of RSV subtypes A and B alongside other respiratory pathogens.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Multiplex Respiratory Virus Detection

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Purpose	Performance Considerations
Transport Media	Universal Transport Medium (UTM) [43] [26], AMDI Sample Buffer [27], Viral Transport Medium (VTM)	Maintains viral integrity during transport and storage	Critical for preserving nucleic acid quality; formulation affects compatibility with downstream assays
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits	High Pure RNA Isolation Kit [45], Trizol LS reagent [46], Automated extraction systems	Isolates high-quality RNA from clinical specimens	Efficiency impacts detection sensitivity; manual vs. automated protocols affect throughput
PCR Enzymes/Master Mixes	One Step PrimeScript III RT-qPCR Kit [44], Custom formulations with reverse transcriptase and DNA polymerase [45]	Enzymatic reverse transcription and DNA amplification	Optimization required for multiplexing; affects sensitivity, specificity, and amplification efficiency
Primer/Probe Sets	SARS-CoV-2 (E, RdRp, N genes), Influenza A/B (M gene), RSV (nucleocapsid gene) [43] [46] [44]	Target-specific detection with fluorescence reporting	Must target conserved regions; designed with similar Tm for multiplex compatibility
Control Materials	Human RPP30 gene [44], Phocine Herpes Virus (PhHV-1) [44], RNA standards [43]	Monitor sample quality, extraction efficiency, and amplification	Distinguishes true negatives from assay failures; essential for quality assurance

Discussion and Future Directions

The evolution of multiplex panels for simultaneous detection of RSV, SARS-CoV-2, and influenza viruses represents significant progress in respiratory disease diagnostics. Current technologies demonstrate excellent performance characteristics, with high sensitivity and specificity across multiple sample types, including anterior nares swabs.

The emphasis on anterior nares swab detection of RSV aligns with the broader trend toward patient-friendly sampling methods that maintain diagnostic accuracy. Research indicates that anterior nasal samples provide a feasible alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs, particularly in pediatric populations where tolerance is a significant consideration [26]. While some studies suggest slightly reduced sensitivity for RSV detection in anterior nasal samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples, the difference may not be clinically significant in most scenarios, especially when using highly sensitive molecular methods.

Future developments in multiplex respiratory testing will likely focus on several key areas. First, the integration of additional respiratory pathogens into comprehensive panels will enhance their clinical utility. The BioFire Respiratory Panel 2.1 plus, for example, detects adenoviruses, human metapneumoviruses, parainfluenza viruses, and various coronaviruses alongside SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and RSV [26] [47]. Second, the push toward rapid, point-of-care testing with minimal hands-on time will continue, as exemplified by the 10-minute turnaround time of the AMDI Fast PCR system [27]. Finally, the ongoing monitoring of circulating viral strains will necessitate periodic updates to primer and probe designs to maintain detection accuracy in the face of viral evolution [48].

In conclusion, multiplex panels for simultaneous detection of RSV, SARS-CoV-2, and influenza viruses have transformed the diagnostic landscape for respiratory infections. When selecting an appropriate platform, researchers and clinicians must consider the balance between analytical performance, sample type suitability, turnaround time, and operational requirements to meet specific clinical or research needs.

Rapid Antigen Detection Tests (RADTs) are immunoassays designed to identify specific viral antigens in respiratory specimens, providing results typically within 30 minutes or less. Their speed, ease of use, and lower cost position them as valuable tools for the rapid detection of respiratory viruses, including Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), particularly in point-of-care and emergency settings [25]. However, their diagnostic performance is characterized by a fundamental trade-off between speed and sensitivity, which must be carefully considered by researchers and clinicians. This guide provides an objective comparison of RADT performance against molecular alternatives, supported by experimental data, and situates this analysis within the broader context of specificity and sensitivity research for anterior nares swab RSV detection.

Performance Data: Quantitative Comparison of RSV Detection Methods

The diagnostic accuracy of RSV RADTs varies significantly based on the patient population, reference standard, and viral load. The following tables summarize key performance metrics from recent and historical studies.

Table 1: Overall Diagnostic Accuracy of RSV RADTs

Metric	Performance in Children	Performance in Adults	Primary Influencing Factors
Pooled Sensitivity	81% (95% CI: 78%-84%) [25]	29% (95% CI: 11%-48%) [25]	Patient age, viral load, specimen type
Pooled Specificity	>97% [25]	>97% [25]	Test design, cross-reactivity
Positive Likelihood Ratio	25.5 (95% CI: 18.3-35.5) [25]	Data not fully reported	Specificity
Negative Likelihood Ratio	0.21 (95% CI: 0.18-0.24) [25]	Data not fully reported	Sensitivity

Table 2: Performance of a Combined Multiplex RADT (AllTest) vs. Molecular Test

Virus Detected	Overall Sensitivity (Ct ≤ 35)	Specificity	Sensitivity in High Viral Load (Ct ≤ 25)
SARS-CoV-2	60% (95% CI: 43.4%-74.7%) [49] [50]	>99% [49] [50]	100% [49] [50]
Influenza A/B	54.3% (95% CI: 36.9%-70.8%) [49] [50]	>99% [49] [50]	100% [49] [50]
RSV	60.0% (95% CI: 38.9%-78.2%) [49] [50]	>99% [49] [50]	100% [49] [50]

Note: Ct (Cycle threshold) values are inversely proportional to viral load; lower Ct values indicate higher viral loads. The data in Table 2 are from a 2025 prospective study evaluating the AllTest SARS‑CoV‑2/IV‑A+B/RSV RDT compared to the Cepheid Xpert Xpress molecular test [49] [50].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

To critically assess the data presented in the comparison tables, it is essential to understand the experimental methodologies from which they were derived.

Protocol for Evaluating a Combined RADT

A 2025 study evaluated a combined RADT using the following protocol [49]:

• Specimen Collection: Naso-oropharyngeal swabs were collected from 100 symptomatic patients with acute respiratory tract infections. Swabs were placed in universal transport medium (UTM) and stored at 4°C.
• Reference Standard Testing: Specimens were analyzed within 24 hours of collection using the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV molecular test, which provides semi-quantitative Ct values.
• Index Test Testing: The AllTest SARS-CoV-2/IV-A+B/RSV Antigen Combo Rapid Test was performed according to the manufacturer's instructions. Results were read at 10 minutes.
• Blinding & Quality Control: Two laboratory technicians, blinded to the molecular test results, independently read all RDTs. No invalid or indeterminate results were reported.
• Statistical Analysis: Sensitivity and specificity were calculated against the reference standard. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed, and a Mann-Whitney U test compared Ct-values between concordant and discordant samples, finding significantly lower viral loads in false-negative cases (p<0.001) [49].

Protocol for a Meta-Analysis of RSV RADTs

A 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis established pooled accuracy estimates using this methodology [25]:

• Search Strategy: Researchers searched EMBASE and PubMed from inception through November 2013, with an update in April 2015, for diagnostic-accuracy studies of commercial RSV RADTs.
• Study Selection: Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. Included studies compared RADTs to a reference standard (RT-PCR, immunofluorescence, or viral culture) and provided sufficient data to construct a 2x2 contingency table.
• Data Extraction and Risk of Bias: A standardized form was used to extract data. Study quality was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool.
• Data Synthesis: Accuracy estimates were pooled using a bivariate random-effects regression model. Pre-specified subgroup analyses (e.g., by age, reference standard) were conducted to explain heterogeneity.

Protocol for Specimen Type Comparison

A 2002 study compared RSV detection from different swab types, relevant to anterior nares sampling [51]:

• Specimen Collection: Paired nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA) and nasal swab (NS) specimens were collected from 635 children under 5 with symptoms of lower respiratory infection.
• Testing Method: Specimens were analyzed using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for RSV antigen in Guinea-Bissau and re-analyzed in Denmark.
• Gold Standard: The gold standard was defined as any test (NPA or NS from either location) being positive.
• Analysis: Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each specimen type against the composite gold standard.

Visualization of RADT Workflow and Performance Determinants

RADT Evaluation and Performance Framework

Impact of Viral Load and Age on RADT Sensitivity

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Materials for RSV RADT Research

Item	Function/Application	Example Products/Brands
Combined Multiplex RADT	Simultaneous detection of multiple respiratory pathogens (e.g., SARS-CoV-2, Flu, RSV) in a single test device.	AllTest SARS-CoV-2/IV-A+B/RSV Antigen Combo Rapid Test [49] [50]
Molecular Reference Standard	High-sensitivity comparator for validating RADT performance; considered the gold standard.	Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV [49], RT-PCR assays [25]
Specimen Collection Kits	For standardized collection and transport of respiratory samples from patients.	Naso-oropharyngeal swabs, Universal Transport Medium (UTM) [49]
ELISA Kits	For antigen detection in studies comparing specimen types or validating RADT antigens.	ELISA for RSV antigen (as used in specimen comparison studies) [51]
Multiplex PCR Panels	For comprehensive pathogen detection in burden of illness studies where RADTs are evaluated.	Certest Biotech Viasure panels, BioFire Diagnostics system [52]

Enhancing Sensitivity and Addressing Detection Challenges

Impact of Viral Load and Symptom Onset Timing on Test Sensitivity

The accurate detection of respiratory pathogens is a cornerstone of effective clinical management and public health surveillance. For respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), a major cause of bronchiolitis and pneumonia in infants and older adults, timely diagnosis enables appropriate therapeutic intervention and infection control measures. Within the broader context of anterior nares swab RSV detection research, understanding how viral load dynamics and symptom onset influence test sensitivity is paramount. This relationship is particularly critical when evaluating less invasive sampling methods like anterior nasal swabs against the traditional nasopharyngeal standard. The quantitative viral load, often measured indirectly through cycle threshold (Ct) values, and the timing of specimen collection relative to symptom onset create a complex diagnostic landscape that directly impacts test performance. This guide objectively compares the sensitivity of various testing methodologies across these variables, providing researchers and drug development professionals with experimental data to inform diagnostic strategies and product development.

Viral Load as a Determinant of Test Sensitivity

Viral load is a primary factor influencing the sensitivity of diagnostic tests for respiratory viruses, including RSV. The relationship is consistently demonstrated across multiple studies and testing platforms, with higher viral loads (indicated by lower Ct values) correlating strongly with improved detection rates.

Impact on Rapid Antigen Tests (RATs)

Rapid antigen tests (RATs) demonstrate a pronounced dependency on viral load, exhibiting high sensitivity in samples with high viral loads but significantly declining performance as viral load decreases.

Table 1: Rapid Antigen Test Sensitivity Stratified by Viral Load (Ct Value)

Ct Value Range	Viral Load Category	Reported Sensitivity for RSV	Reported Sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2	Reported Sensitivity for Influenza A/B
≤ 20	Very High	Not Specified	97.9% [53]	Not Specified
≤ 25	High	100% [49]	91% - 98% [49]	100% [49]
> 25	Low to Moderate	60.0% [49]	60% [49]	54.3% [49]
> 30	Low	Not Specified	Sensitivity declines significantly [53]	Not Specified

A 2025 prospective study evaluating a combined RDT for SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and RSV found that while the test achieved 100% sensitivity for all three viruses in samples with Ct-values ≤ 25, the overall sensitivity for RSV dropped to 60.0% when including samples with Ct-values up to 35 [49]. This pattern of high sensitivity in high viral load scenarios and a sharp decline at Ct-values above 25 is a consistent finding across multiple studies [53]. The specificity of these tests, however, remains high (>99%) across all viral loads, minimizing false-positive results [49].

Impact on Molecular Tests (PCR)

While nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) like PCR are generally more sensitive than RATs across a broader range of viral loads, the sampling method can influence the effective sensitivity by altering the amount of virus collected.

Table 2: Sensitivity of Anterior Nares Swab vs. Nasopharyngeal Swab for PCR Detection

Virus Target	Sensitivity of Anterior Nares Swab (vs. NP Swab)	Key Context
RSV	100% (when collected within 24 hrs of NP) [54]	In a 2025 pediatric study, sensitivity remained ≥80% within 48 hours.
SARS-CoV-2	82% - 88% (Composite Reference Standard) [55]	Meta-analysis of ambulatory patients for initial diagnosis.
Influenza A	100% [26]	Findings from a 2025 pediatric study comparing sample types.
Multiple Respiratory Viruses	100% for Adenovirus, Influenza, Parainfluenza, RSV, SARS-CoV-2 [54]	When anterior nasal swabs were collected within 24 hours of the NP swab.

A 2025 study on pediatric patients confirmed that the sensitivity of anterior nasal swabs for a multiplex PCR panel was high (≥80% for most viruses, and 100% for RSV) when collected within 24-48 hours of the reference nasopharyngeal swab [54]. Another 2025 study concluded that anterior nasal samples were more accurate than saliva samples for detecting respiratory viruses via multiplex PCR in children, demonstrating performance comparable to the nasopharyngeal benchmark for viruses like RSV and influenza [26].

Symptom Onset and Viral Dynamics

The timing of sample collection relative to the onset of symptoms is a critical variable because it is closely linked to the natural progression of viral load in the host.

Viral Load Dynamics Post-Symptom Onset

The viral load of RSV is not static; it peaks shortly after symptom onset and then gradually declines. A key study on infants with bronchiolitis found that the peak RSV load was observed upon hospital admission (within 96 hours of wheezing onset) and decreased significantly over time, with a notable drop beginning around day 5 of hospitalization [56]. This dynamic progression underscores the importance of early testing for optimal sensitivity. Furthermore, this study established a direct positive correlation between RSV load and clinical severity, with infants in the severe group having significantly higher viral loads than those in moderate or mild groups [56]. The viral load on day 3 of hospitalization was independently associated with the degree of illness severity [56].

Implications for Test Sensitivity

The changing viral load over the course of an infection has direct implications for diagnostic sensitivity. Tests are most likely to yield a true positive result when collected during the peak viral shedding phase. Research on SARS-CoV-2 provides a model for understanding this relationship, showing that viral load in anterior nasal swabs increases up to day 4 of symptoms before decreasing [57]. This pattern suggests a window of maximum detectability. For RSV, the observation that viral load peaks around the time of symptom onset and declines thereafter [56] implies that the highest test sensitivity, particularly for RATs, will be achieved in the first few days after symptoms appear. This is especially crucial for paucisymptomatic individuals, who can still transmit the infection. One study noted that approximately 30% of RSV secondary cases were infected before the onset of symptoms in the index case, despite the viral load being at its lowest at that point [53].

Figure 1: The relationship between symptom onset, viral load dynamics, and the resulting window of high sensitivity for rapid antigen tests (RATs).

Comparative Experimental Data & Protocols

Performance of a Combined Rapid Antigen Test

• Objective: To prospectively evaluate the diagnostic performance of the AllTest SARS‑CoV‑2/IV‑A+B/RSV Antigen Combo Rapid Test against a molecular benchmark [49].
• Methodology:
  • Sample Collection: 100 naso-oropharyngeal swabs were collected from symptomatic patients with acute respiratory tract infections at a tertiary care hospital. Samples were stored in universal transport medium (UTM) at 4°C and tested within 24 hours [49].
  • Reference Standard: The Xpert Xpress SARS‑CoV‑2/Flu/RSV plus test (Cepheid), a multiplex NAAT, was used. Samples with Ct-values ≤ 35 were included [49].
  • Index Test: The AllTest RDT was performed according to manufacturer instructions. Results were read after 10 minutes by two blinded laboratory technicians [49].
  • Statistical Analysis: Sensitivity and specificity were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed, and viral load differences between concordant and discordant results were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test in R [49].
• Key Results: See quantitative data in Table 1. The study highlighted that negative RDT results in symptomatic patients should be confirmed by nucleic acid testing due to the significant drop in sensitivity at lower viral loads [49].

Comparison of Sampling Modalities in a Pediatric Population

• Objective: To compare the sensitivity of anterior nasal swabs (ANS) to combined throat and anterior nasal swabs (CTN) for detecting respiratory viruses in children [17].
• Methodology:
  • Study Design: Prospective study of children (5-18 years) presenting with respiratory symptoms. Swab order (ANS vs. CTN) was randomized [17].
  • Sample Collection:
    • ANS: A novel flocked anterior nasal swab (Rhinoswab Junior) was used. It was inserted for 60 seconds, followed by side-to-side movements for 15 seconds [17].
    • CTN: A flocked swab was used to swab the tonsillar beds and throat, followed by bilateral nasal insertion and rotation against the nasal wall [17].
  • Laboratory Analysis: Samples were tested without transport medium. Elution was performed with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Multiplex RT-PCR (AusDiagnostics Respiratory Pathogens 16-well assay) was used for detection [17].
• Key Results: The ANS showed a positive percentage agreement (PPA) of 96.2% and a negative percentage agreement (NPA) of 99.8% compared to the CTN. The ANS was also rated as more comfortable and was the preferred future swab for 84% of children [17].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Respiratory Virus Detection Studies

Item	Specific Example(s)	Function in Experimental Protocol
Flocked Swabs	Copan Universal Transport Media swabs [17] [22], Rhinoswab Junior [17]	Sample collection from nasopharynx, anterior nares, or oropharynx. Flocked tips release specimens efficiently.
Universal Transport Medium (UTM)	Copan UTM [49] [22] [26]	Preserves viral integrity and stabilizes nucleic acids during transport and storage before testing.
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits	QIAamp MinElute Virus Spin Kit [56], Maxwell HT Viral TNA Kit [22]	Isolates and purifies viral DNA/RNA from clinical specimens for downstream molecular assays.
Multiplex PCR Assays	Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus [49] [26], BioFire Respiratory Panel 2.1 plus [26], AusDiagnostics Respiratory Pathogens assay [17]	Simultaneous detection and identification of multiple respiratory pathogens in a single reaction.
Real-Time PCR Kits	Luna Universal Probe One-Step RT-qPCR Kit [22]	Amplifies and quantifies specific viral nucleic acid sequences, providing Ct values as a semi-quantitative measure of viral load.
Rapid Antigen Tests	AllTest SARS-CoV-2/IV-A+B/RSV Antigen Combo Rapid Test [49], COVID-VIRO ALL IN TRIPLEX [21]	Provides rapid, point-of-care detection of viral antigens, useful for quick triage and infection control decisions.

Figure 2: A generalized experimental workflow for respiratory virus detection studies, from sample collection to final analysis.

The sensitivity of tests for respiratory viruses like RSV is inextricably linked to viral load and the timing of sample collection relative to symptom onset. Rapid antigen tests, while offering speed and convenience, demonstrate excellent sensitivity (approaching 100%) only in high viral load scenarios (Ct ≤ 25), making them most reliable early in the symptomatic phase. For lower viral loads, which are common later in the illness or in paucisymptomatic individuals, molecular methods like PCR are essential for accurate diagnosis. The evidence supports the use of anterior nasal swabs as a less invasive and highly sensitive alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs for PCR-based detection, particularly when samples are collected within the first 48 hours of a reference test. For researchers and drug developers, these findings highlight the need to stratify performance data by viral load and to consider the intended use case—early symptomatic screening versus comprehensive diagnosis—when designing and evaluating new diagnostic solutions for RSV.

The accurate detection of respiratory viruses, including Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), is a cornerstone of effective clinical management and public health surveillance. For years, the nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) has been considered the benchmark specimen for respiratory virus detection via nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs), offering high sensitivity [58]. However, its invasive nature, requirement for skilled healthcare personnel, and potential to cause patient discomfort have spurred the search for less invasive and more patient-friendly alternatives [59]. Among these, anterior nares (nasal) swabs and saliva samples have emerged as prominent candidates.

This guide objectively evaluates the performance of these alternative specimen types, focusing on the central thesis that multi-specimen strategies, which combine anterior nares swabs with saliva or serology, can significantly increase detection rates for RSV and other respiratory viruses compared to single-sample testing. We will synthesize current experimental data to compare the sensitivity, specificity, and practical utility of these approaches, providing researchers and clinicians with a evidence-based framework for optimizing diagnostic protocols.

Performance Data: Quantitative Comparison of Specimen Types

The diagnostic performance of different specimen types varies considerably. The following tables summarize key quantitative findings from recent studies, comparing detection rates and test performance across specimen types.

Table 1: Comparative Sensitivity of Different Specimen Types for RSV Detection

Specimen Type	Sensitivity (%)	Comparative Notes	Source Study Context
Nasopharyngeal Swab (NPS) - Multiplex RT-PCR	47.2 - 81.0	Often the reference standard; sensitivity lower in adult populations.	[60] [61]
Anterior Nares / Nasal Swab	82.0 - 83.3	Sensitivity is highly dependent on sampling technique (e.g., number of rubs).	[59] [58]
Saliva	61.4	Less sensitive than NPS in some studies, but better tolerated.	[60]
Sputum	70.1	High detection rate, but not feasible for all patient populations.	[60]
Paired Serology	73.0	Most sensitive single method in adult studies; requires acute and convalescent samples.	[60]
Combined Multi-Specimen Approach (NPS, saliva, sputum, serology)	212% of NPS-alone detection	A 112% increase in detection rate compared to using NPS alone.	[60]

Table 2: Diagnostic Performance of Alternative Swab Methods for Various Respiratory Viruses

Specimen Type	Virus	Sensitivity (95% CI)	Specificity (95% CI)	Source
Self-collected Oral-Nasal Swab	RSV	0.75 (0.43–0.95)	0.99 (0.93–1.00)	[22]
Self-collected Oral-Nasal Swab	Influenza (A & B)	0.67 (0.49–0.81)	0.96 (0.89–0.99)	[22]
Anterior Nasal Swab (Antigen Test)	SARS-CoV-2	72.5 (58.3–84.1)	100 (99.3–100)	[62]

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Understanding the experimental designs behind the data is crucial for interpreting results and designing future studies. Below are detailed methodologies from key studies that have directly compared specimen types.

Protocol: Direct Comparison of Nasal, Nasopharyngeal, and Saliva Samples

A 2023 study by Lee et al. provides a robust protocol for head-to-head comparison [59].

• Study Population: 48 patients (34 with SARS-CoV-2, 14 with other respiratory viruses) and 8 healthy controls.
• Sample Collection:
  • Nasal Swabs: Self-collected by patients using an SS-SWAB applicator placed in one nostril and rotated five times. A subset of patients provided a second sample from the other nostril using 10 rubs to evaluate the effect of collection vigor.
  • Nasopharyngeal Swabs (NPS): Collected by medical staff using two different product types (Noble Bio and Copan FLOQSwabs) inserted into the nasopharynx and rotated 2-3 times.
  • Saliva Samples: Two types collected - a saliva swab placed under the tongue for 3 minutes and an undiluted saliva sample collected by spitting into a tube.
• Transport and Storage: All swab samples were immersed in Clinical Virus Transport Medium (CTM) and transported to the lab within one hour.
• Virus Detection: Nucleic acids were extracted using QIAcube and QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kits. Real-time PCR was performed using Allplex Respiratory Panels 1/2/3 and Allplex SARS-CoV-2 kit on a CFX96 Real-Time PCR Detection System. Cycle threshold (Ct) values were compared.
• Key Findings: NPS showed the lowest Ct values (highest virus concentrations). However, nasal swabs collected with 10 rubs showed a significantly lower median Ct value for SARS-CoV-2 than those with 5 rubs and were not significantly different from NPS.

Protocol: Multi-Specimen Approach for RSV Detection in Adults

The "Multispecimen Study" offers a critical protocol for maximizing RSV detection in hospitalized adults, demonstrating the power of a multi-specimen strategy [60].

• Study Population: Hospitalized adults aged ≥40 years with acute respiratory illness, prospectively enrolled across 7 US/Canadian hospitals (N=3669).
• Sample Collection:
  • Nasopharyngeal Swab (NPS): Collected from all participants.
  • Saliva: Collected from 97.7% of participants.
  • Sputum: Collected from 33.0% of participants.
  • Paired Sera: Acute and convalescent sera collected from 33.4% of participants for serology.
• Testing Method: All specimen types were tested for RSV. The detection rate using all specimen types was compared to the rate from NPS alone.
• Key Findings: Using all four specimen types increased RSV detection by 112% compared to NPS alone. Serology was the most sensitive single method (73.0%), followed by sputum (70.1%), saliva (61.4%), and NPS (47.2%). The increase was most pronounced in patients with congestive heart failure exacerbations (267% increase).

Workflow and Logical Relationships

The following diagram illustrates the logical decision-making pathway and workflow for implementing a multi-specimen testing strategy, as supported by the evidence from the cited studies.

Diagram Title: Multi-Specimen Testing Strategy Workflow for Enhanced Virus Detection

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of the protocols and strategies described above relies on the use of specific, high-quality materials. The table below details key research reagents and their functions as cited in the studies.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Respiratory Virus Detection Studies

Item	Function / Application	Specific Examples from Literature
Flocked Swabs	Superior specimen collection and elution from nasal, nasopharyngeal, and oral surfaces.	Copan FLOQSwabs [59] [62]; Noble Bio SS-SWAB [59]; δswab nasopharyngeal nylon-flocked swabs [63].
Viral Transport Medium (VTM) / Universal Transport Medium (UTM)	Stabilizes viral nucleic acids during transport and storage.	Copan UTM [26] [62]; Clinical Virus Transport Medium (CTM) [59]; Standard Viral Transport Media [64].
Automated Nucleic Acid Extraction Systems	Standardizes and automates the purification of viral RNA/DNA from specimens.	QIAcube with QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kits [59]; KingFisher Flex with MagMAX Viral/Pathogen II Nucleic Acid Isolation Kit [64]; Hamilton Star with Maxwell HT Viral TNA Kit [22].
Real-Time PCR Instruments & Kits	Detection and quantification of viral targets via nucleic acid amplification.	Bio-Rad CFX96 [59] [64]; Applied Biosystems QuantStudio 5 [64]; Cepheid GeneXpert systems [63] [26].
Multiplex PCR Assays	Simultaneous detection of multiple respiratory pathogens in a single reaction.	Allplex Respiratory Panels & SARS-CoV-2 Assay [59]; BioFire Respiratory Panel 2.1 plus [26]; VitaSIRO solo SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV Assay [63].

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the adoption of multi-specimen strategies to overcome the limitations of single-specimen testing for respiratory viruses like RSV. While the nasopharyngeal swab remains a highly sensitive option, its performance, particularly in adult populations, can be significantly augmented by the addition of less invasive samples.

The data confirms that anterior nares swabs, when collected vigorously, can achieve viral concentrations comparable to NPS [59]. More importantly, combining anterior nares swabs with saliva, sputum, or serology can increase detection rates by over 100% compared to NPS alone, dramatically reducing under-ascertainment of disease burden [60]. For researchers and drug development professionals, these findings are critical. They highlight the necessity of validating diagnostic tests and evaluating therapeutics using a multi-faceted sampling approach to ensure accurate case identification and a true reflection of intervention efficacy. As the field moves forward, optimizing and standardizing these multi-specimen protocols will be essential for advancing both respiratory virus research and patient care.

Machine Learning Algorithms to Guide Testing Decisions and Optimize Resource Allocation

Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) is a major cause of respiratory infections leading to significant pediatric hospitalizations and healthcare burden worldwide. The accurate and timely detection of RSV is crucial for effective patient management, infection control, and resource allocation in healthcare systems. Traditionally, nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs have been considered the gold standard for RSV detection, but their collection is invasive, requires trained healthcare personnel, and causes patient discomfort. These challenges have driven research toward less invasive alternatives like anterior nares (AN) swabs and the development of sophisticated machine learning (ML) algorithms to optimize testing decisions. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of these emerging approaches, evaluating their performance characteristics, implementation requirements, and potential to transform respiratory virus testing paradigms. The integration of anterior nares sampling with ML-driven testing strategies represents a promising frontier in diagnostic medicine, balancing accuracy with patient comfort and healthcare efficiency.

Performance Comparison of Sampling Methods for RSV Detection

Anterior Nares vs. Nasopharyngeal Swabs: Diagnostic Accuracy

The comparison between anterior nares and nasopharyngeal sampling methods reveals a trade-off between patient comfort and diagnostic sensitivity. Research indicates that while nasopharyngeal swabs remain the sensitivity benchmark, anterior nares swabs offer a clinically acceptable alternative with distinct advantages in ease of collection and patient tolerance.

Table 1: Comparison of Swab Type Performance for Respiratory Virus Detection

Swab Type	Sensitivity Range	Specificity Range	Patient Tolerance	Collection Requirements
Nasopharyngeal (NP)	98% (Composite Reference Standard) [55]	98.8-99.0% [14]	Less comfortable, especially in children [26]	Healthcare professional, specialized training
Anterior Nares (AN)	82-88% (Composite Reference Standard) [55]	99.2-100% [14]	Better tolerated, suitable for self-collection [26] [15]	Minimal training, potential for self-collection
Saliva	Lower than anterior nasal samples [26]	Not fully reported	Best tolerated [26]	Self-collection possible with instruction

In pediatric populations with respiratory symptoms, anterior nasal samples demonstrated better accuracy than saliva samples when compared to nasopharyngeal swabs as reference [26]. The collection of anterior nasal and saliva samples was significantly better tolerated than nasopharyngeal sampling in children, making them particularly suitable for pediatric applications and repeat testing scenarios [26].

Quantitative Performance Metrics Across Studies

Table 2: Detailed Performance Metrics by Sample Type and Population

Study Population	Swab Type	Target Pathogen	Sensitivity	Specificity	Reference Standard
Ambulatory patients	Anterior Nares	SARS-CoV-2	82-88%	N/A	Composite CRS [55]
Ambulatory patients	Nasopharyngeal	SARS-CoV-2	98%	N/A	Composite CRS [55]
Symptomatic patients (Drive-through testing)	Anterior Nares	SARS-CoV-2	79.5-85.6%	99.2-100%	NP RT-PCR [14]
Symptomatic patients (Drive-through testing)	Nasopharyngeal	SARS-CoV-2	81.2-83.9%	98.8-99.0%	NP RT-PCR [14]
Pediatric patients with respiratory symptoms	Anterior Nares	Multiple respiratory viruses	More accurate than saliva	Not fully reported	NP swab by fourplex PCR [26]

For populations with 10% specimen positivity, the negative predictive values of all swab types exceeded 98% [55], suggesting that anterior nares swabs can reliably exclude infection in low-prevalence settings, which is particularly valuable for screening programs.

Machine Learning Approaches to Optimize Testing Strategies

ML Algorithms for RSV Testing Triage

Machine learning applications in RSV testing focus on optimizing test allocation by identifying high-probability cases while reducing unnecessary invasive procedures. These models utilize clinical features and symptom patterns to guide testing decisions, potentially transforming resource allocation in healthcare settings.

Table 3: Machine Learning Models for RSV Testing Optimization

ML Algorithm	Study Population	Key Features	Sensitivity	Specificity	Potential Testing Reduction
ML-based screening algorithm	Children <2 years with respiratory symptoms [65] [66]	Symptoms, background characteristics, hospitalization status	85.1% (validation) [65] [66]	71.2% (validation) [65] [66]	77.9% for hospitalized patients [65] [66]
Multi-Source Adaptive Weighting (MSAW)	Emergency Department visits [67]	Signs and symptoms from EHRs across multiple seasons	Improved over baselines [67]	Improved over baselines [67]	Not quantified
Random Forest, SVM, LSTM	Multiple respiratory viruses [68]	Epidemiological surveillance data	Varied by model	Varied by model	Not quantified

The ML model developed for pediatric patients under 2 years old achieved a negative predictive value of 97.0% for cases requiring hospitalization and 100% for patients with underlying conditions [65] [66], demonstrating particular utility in prioritizing testing for high-risk populations while safely reducing unnecessary procedures.

Advanced ML Implementation: Online Transfer Learning

The Multi-Source Adaptive Weighting (MSAW) method represents a sophisticated approach to RSV case detection that addresses the challenge of limited labeled data in dynamic environments. This online transfer learning framework integrates a dynamic weighting mechanism within an ensemble framework, automatically adjusting weights based on the relevance and contribution of each source model (historical knowledge) and target model (newly acquired data) [67]. The system demonstrates improved performance over static models by continuously adapting to new data patterns while leveraging historical knowledge, showing particular promise for healthcare applications where data accumulates progressively and seasonal patterns evolve [67].

MSAW Framework for RSV Detection

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Sample Collection and Processing Protocols

The methodological details for comparing anterior nares and nasopharyngeal samples follow standardized protocols to ensure reproducible results. In a comprehensive pediatric study, nasopharyngeal samples were collected by nurses using nylon-flocked dry swabs through one nostril from the nasopharynx without extra training, reflecting real-world clinical practice [26]. Anterior nasal samples were collected by rotating a nylon-flocked dry swab in both nostrils, while saliva samples were collected either using a wrapped polyester swab rotated on the cheek mucosa or by having older children spit directly into a collection container [26]. All swabs were placed in 3 mL UTM Universal Transport Medium and stored at +4°C for maximum 3 days before transfer to -70°C for long-term storage until virus analysis.

For ML validation studies, researchers conducted retrospective analyses of pediatric patients under 2 years presenting with respiratory infection symptoms who received RSV testing [65] [66]. The cohorts were divided into training and validation sets, with patient-reported symptoms and background characteristics collected from structured electronic questionnaires to build ML models predicting RSV testing necessity according to established clinical guidelines [65] [66]. Model performance was evaluated focusing on hospitalized patients and those with underlying conditions, with implementation potential calculated based on reduction of unnecessary testing while maintaining diagnostic accuracy.

Laboratory Analysis Methods

Virus detection methodologies employed in these studies include multiplex PCR platforms that provide comprehensive respiratory pathogen identification. In comparative swab studies, nasopharyngeal samples were typically analyzed with tests like the Xpert Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus test as part of routine care [26]. Subsequently, these samples along with anterior nasal and saliva samples were analyzed with the BioFire Respiratory Panel 2.1 plus test, a cartridge-based multiplex PCR test that detects adenoviruses, coronaviruses (including SARS-CoV-2), rhino/enteroviruses, influenza viruses, parainfluenza viruses, RSV, human metapneumoviruses, and bacterial pathogens including Bordetella pertussis and Mycoplasma pneumoniae [26].

For host response-based classification, researchers employed RNA extraction and sequencing protocols, analyzing nasal samples across multiple cohorts to identify conserved host response to viral infections [69]. The classifier development involved identifying consistently differentially expressed genes in viral ARI patients compared to healthy controls, with subsequent down-selection to 33 genes for final classifier development using logistic regression [69].

Experimental Workflow for RSV Detection

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Key Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Research Materials for AN Swab RSV Detection Studies

Reagent/Material	Manufacturer/Type	Function/Application	Key Characteristics
Nylon-flocked dry swab	Copan Diagnostics	Sample collection from anterior nares	Enhanced cellular collection and release
Universal Transport Medium (UTM)	Copan Diagnostics	Sample preservation and transport	Maintains viral integrity during storage and transport
BioFire Respiratory Panel 2.1 plus	BioMerieux	Multiplex PCR detection of respiratory pathogens	Detects 22 pathogens including RSV, SARS-CoV-2, influenza
Xpert Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus test	Cepheid	Rapid fourplex PCR testing	Automated sample processing and analysis
RNA extraction kits	QIAamp 96 Virus QIAcube HT kit	Nucleic acid purification	High-quality RNA extraction for molecular assays
RT-qPCR reagents	TaqPath COVID-19 (ThermoFisher)	SARS-CoV-2 detection and quantification	Target viral RNA with high sensitivity and specificity

The selection of appropriate collection materials is critical for assay performance. Studies have compared different swab types, including polyester and FLOQSwabs, finding that both can be effective for anterior nasal RT-PCR testing when properly matched with transport media and processing protocols [15]. The compatibility between swab material, transport medium, and detection methodology must be validated to ensure optimal recovery of viral material and accurate detection.

The comparative analysis of anterior nares sampling and machine learning algorithms for RSV testing reveals a compelling paradigm for optimizing respiratory virus detection strategies. Anterior nares swabs offer a favorable balance of acceptable sensitivity (82-88%) and significantly improved patient tolerance, making them particularly suitable for pediatric populations, repeat testing scenarios, and community screening programs. When implemented with machine learning triage systems that can reduce unnecessary testing by 72.9-77.9% while maintaining high negative predictive values (97-100%), healthcare systems can achieve more efficient resource allocation without compromising diagnostic accuracy.

The integration of these approaches represents the future of respiratory virus testing—a patient-centered model that prioritizes comfort and accessibility while maintaining rigorous diagnostic standards through intelligent testing algorithms. As ML technologies continue to evolve, particularly with adaptive learning approaches that incorporate temporal patterns and multiple data streams, the potential for further optimization of testing strategies will expand, creating more responsive and efficient respiratory virus detection ecosystems.

The accurate detection of Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) is paramount for effective patient management, infection control, and the development of novel therapeutics and vaccines. The diagnostic process is heavily influenced by pre-analytical factors, with the choice of swab type, the rigor of the collection technique, and the suitability of the transport media being critical determinants of test sensitivity and specificity. This guide objectively compares these key components within the context of a broader thesis on specificity and sensitivity in anterior nares swab RSV detection research. For researchers and drug development professionals, understanding these nuances is essential for designing robust clinical trials, validating new diagnostic assays, and accurately measuring disease burden.

Comparative Analysis of Swab Types and Performance Data

The selection of swab type is a fundamental decision that directly impacts the quality of the specimen and the subsequent sensitivity of detection. The following table summarizes the core characteristics and performance data of common swab types used for respiratory virus detection, drawing parallels from extensive SARS-CoV-2 research which provides a robust framework for understanding.

Table 1: Comparison of Swab Types for Respiratory Virus Detection

Swab Type	Collection Site	Relative Sensitivity & Performance Data	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
Nasopharyngeal (NP) Swab	Nasopharynx, beyond the turbinates	Considered the "gold standard" for many respiratory viruses [70]. Studies show 98% sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection against a composite reference standard [70]. Consistently shows the lowest PCR Ct values (highest virus concentrations) [59].	High sensitivity, considered the clinical standard for many applications [59] [70].	Invasive, requires trained healthcare workers, can cause patient discomfort, may induce sneezing/coughing [59] [71].
Anterior Nares (AN) Swab	Front of the nose (nostrils)	82-88% sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 versus a composite standard [70]. Performance is highly dependent on technique; one study found a significantly lower Ct value (24.3 vs. 28.9) with 10 rubs vs. 5 rubs [59]. Concordance with NP swabs is high only in patients with high viral loads [72] [73].	Less invasive, more comfortable for patients, suitable for self-collection, enables wider testing scalability [14] [73].	Lower sensitivity compared to NP, especially in low viral load cases; test line intensity in Ag tests can be weaker, risking misinterpretation [14] [72] [70].
Mid-Turbinate (MT) Swab	Midway back in the nasal cavity	Shows performance comparable to anterior nares swabs [70]. Often grouped with AN swabs in recommendations as a less invasive alternative to NP swabs [73].	A less invasive compromise between AN and NP swabs.	May still be uncomfortable for some patients; performance can be user-dependent.

Detailed Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

To critically evaluate the data presented in comparison tables, an understanding of the underlying experimental methodologies is crucial. The following sections detail protocols from key studies that have directly informed best practices.

Protocol 1: Head-to-Head Comparison of AN and NP Swabs

This protocol, adapted from a SARS-CoV-2 antigen test study, outlines a rigorous paired design for direct comparison of swab performance [14].

• Objective: To conduct a head-to-head diagnostic accuracy evaluation of anterior nares (AN) and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs for viral antigen detection [14].
• Study Population: Symptomatic adult patients presenting at a community drive-through test centre [14].
• Sample Collection Workflow:
  • NP Swab for Reference PCR: A trained healthcare worker collects the first NP swab from one nostril and places it into Universal Transport Medium (UTM) for RT-qPCR analysis [14].
  • NP Swab for Index Test: A second NP swab is collected from the other nostril for the rapid antigen test (Ag-RDT) under evaluation [14].
  • AN Swab for Index Test: Finally, an AN swab is collected from both nostrils according to the manufacturer's instructions for the same Ag-RDT [14].
• Laboratory Processing: All samples are processed in a containment laboratory. Antigen tests are performed and interpreted by two operators blinded to each other's results and the PCR outcome. The visual intensity of the test line is often scored on a quantitative scale (e.g., 1-10). RNA is extracted and tested via RT-qPCR, with viral load quantified using a standard curve [14].
• Data Analysis: Sensitivity, specificity, and positive/negative predictive values are calculated for both AN and NP swabs against the RT-qPCR reference standard. The agreement between swab types is measured using Cohen’s kappa (κ), and the limit of detection (LoD) is determined via logistic regression [14].

Protocol 2: Optimizing Nasal Swab Technique

This protocol specifically investigates the impact of collection vigor on swab sensitivity, a critical factor for anterior nares sampling [59].

• Objective: To evaluate the effect of the number of nasal swab rubs on the detected viral load of SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses [59].
• Study Population: Patients with confirmed respiratory virus infections [59].
• Sample Collection Workflow:
  • Paired Nasal Sampling: From a single patient, one nasal swab is collected by rubbing the inside of one nostril five times while rotating the swab [59].
  • Comparative Sampling: From the same patient (or a subset), a second nasal swab is collected from the other nostril using ten rubs [59].
  • Control Sampling: These are compared against NP swabs collected by healthcare workers [59].
• Laboratory Processing: All samples are transported in the same type and volume of Clinical Virus Transport Medium. Nucleic acids are extracted and tested using multiplex real-time PCR panels (e.g., Allplex Respiratory Panels). Cycle threshold (Ct) values for target viruses are recorded and compared [59].
• Data Analysis: Median Ct values from the 5-rub and 10-rub techniques are compared using non-parametric statistical tests (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank test). A lower Ct value from the 10-rub method indicates a higher viral load and improved sensitivity [59].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful RSV detection research relies on a suite of specialized materials. The following table details key research reagent solutions and their functions within the experimental workflow.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for RSV Detection Studies

Item	Specification/Function	Research Application
Flocked Nasal Swabs	Micro-ultra-fine tipped swabs with a flocked surface to maximize specimen collection and release [71].	Superior collection and elution of viral material for both antigen and PCR testing, especially from the anterior nares [59] [71].
Universal Transport Media (UTM)	Contains antimicrobial agents to minimize bacterial/fungal overgrowth and stabilizes viral RNA/DNA [14] [71].	Sterile transport and preservation of specimen integrity from collection site to laboratory processing. Essential for maintaining sample viability [14].
RNA Extraction Kits	(e.g., QIAamp 96 Virus QIAcube HT kit) Purifies viral nucleic acid from the transport media and swab eluent [14].	Prepares sample for downstream molecular detection. Critical for achieving high sensitivity in RT-qPCR assays [14] [74].
Real-time PCR Assays	Multiplex panels (e.g., Allplex Respiratory Panels 1/2/3) for detecting RSV and other viruses simultaneously [59] [74].	Gold-standard for sensitive and specific detection and quantification of RSV viral load (via Ct values) in clinical specimens [59].
Serology Assays	Tests for RSV pre-fusion F IgG and IgA antibodies in serum [74].	Used in longitudinal cohort studies to identify seroconversion and capture infections missed by intermittent nasal sampling, providing a more complete incidence picture [74].

Impact of Collection and Transport on Detection Sensitivity

The journey of a specimen from collection to analysis is fraught with variables that can degrade sample quality. The following diagram synthesizes the logical relationships between pre-analytical factors and their ultimate impact on the sensitivity of RSV detection, particularly for anterior nares swabs.

As illustrated, the sensitivity of detection is a direct function of pre-analytical factors. Key considerations include:

• Collection Technique is Paramount: For anterior nares swabs, a vigorous collection technique with sufficient rotations (e.g., 10 rubs) is critical to dislodge and collect a adequate viral load. Inadequate technique is a primary cause of false negatives, particularly in patients with low viral loads [72] [59].
• Transport Media Stability: Delays in transportation or the use of inappropriate transport media can lead to viral degradation, directly reducing the detectable viral RNA and compromising PCR results [73].
• Inherent Limitations of AN Swabs: Even with perfect technique, AN swabs may inherently collect a lower viral load than NP swabs, as evidenced by statistically significant reductions in mean viral load in paired studies [73]. This fundamental difference must be accounted for in study design and data interpretation.

The choice between nasopharyngeal and anterior nares swabs represents a trade-off between analytical sensitivity and practical feasibility. NP swabs remain the gold standard for maximum sensitivity, essential for certain clinical trials and diagnostic validation studies. However, anterior nares swabs, when collected with a standardized and vigorous technique and supported by a robust transport and analytical pipeline, provide a less invasive and highly scalable alternative. For researchers focusing on anterior nares swab RSV detection, the evidence is clear: rigorous attention to pre-analytical protocols—especially collection technique—is not merely a best practice but a fundamental requirement for ensuring data integrity, reducing false negatives, and generating reliable results that can effectively inform drug and diagnostic development.

Clinical Performance Benchmarking Against Reference Standards

Within respiratory virus diagnostics, the nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) has long been regarded as the gold standard for specimen collection due to its high diagnostic yield for pathogens like Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) and SARS-CoV-2 [24]. However, its collection is technically challenging, uncomfortable for patients, and poses an infectious risk to healthcare workers [24]. This has spurred significant research into less invasive alternatives, primarily anterior nares (nasal) swabs. For researchers and drug development professionals, understanding the precise sensitivity and specificity of these alternatives relative to the NPS is critical for designing accurate diagnostic tests and clinical trials. This guide provides a data-driven comparison of performance metrics and methodologies, contextualized within the broader thesis that anterior nares swabs offer a viable, and in some contexts superior, approach for RSV detection research.

Performance Data at a Glance

The following tables summarize key quantitative findings from recent studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of different swab types and specimen combinations.

Table 1: Comparative Sensitivity of Respiratory Specimens for Viral Detection

Virus	Specimen Type	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	Notes & Reference
SARS-CoV-2	Oropharyngeal Swab (OPS)	94.1	-	Comparable to NPS (92.5%), p=1.00 [24]
SARS-CoV-2	Nasopharyngeal Swab (NPS)	92.5	-	Gold standard in study [24]
SARS-CoV-2	Anterior Nares/Nasal Swab	82.4	-	Significantly lower than OPS (p=0.07) [24]
SARS-CoV-2	Combined OPS/Nasal Swab	96.1	-	Significant increase vs. nasal swab alone (p=0.03) [24]
RSV	Nasopharyngeal Swab (NPS)	47.2	-	Significant underestimation vs. multi-specimen testing [60]
RSV	Saliva	61.4	-	Higher detection sensitivity than NPS in study [60]
RSV	Sputum	70.1	-	High sensitivity in multi-specimen study [60]
RSV	Serology	73.0	-	Highest sensitivity in multi-specimen study [60]
RSV	All 4 Specimen Types Combined	112% increase	-	Vs. NPS alone [60]

Table 2: Performance of Rapid Antigen Tests (RADTs)

Virus	Test Format & Specimen	Overall Sensitivity	Notes & Reference
RSV	RADTs (Multiple), Pediatric	80% (Pooled)	Meta-analysis of 63 studies; specificity 97% [25]
RSV	RADTs (Multiple), Adult	29% (Pooled)	Poor sensitivity precludes routine use [25]
RSV/Influenza/SARS-CoV-2	Rapid Antigen Triplex Test, Anterior Nasal Swab	79.1% (RSV), 91.6% (Flu), 88.9% (SARS-CoV-2)	Sensitivity for RSV increased to 87.2% for Ct<32 [21]
SARS-CoV-2	Rapid Antigen Test, Nasal Swab	47% (vs. RT-PCR), 80% (vs. Viral Culture)	Detects potentially transmissible infection [75]

Detailed Experimental Protocols

To ensure the reproducibility of cited data, this section outlines the key methodological details from pivotal studies.

Prospective Head-to-Head Comparison for SARS-CoV-2

A 2023 prospective diagnostic study provided a direct comparison of OPS, NPS, and nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing [24].

• Participant Recruitment: The study enrolled 51 adults with a prior confirmed positive SARS-CoV-2 test (less than 10 days old). The mean age was 42.8 years, and 60.8% were symptomatic at inclusion [24].
• Specimen Collection: A consultant or registrar in otorhinolaryngology performed all swab collections on each participant to ensure standardization and high quality [24].
  • NPS: Collected using a flexible minitip flocked swab. The swab was inserted approximately 8-11 cm into the nasal cavity towards the earlobe until resistance was met at the nasopharynx. It was left for a few seconds, rotated three times, and withdrawn [24].
  • OPS: Collected using a rigid-shaft flocked swab with a tongue depressor for visualization. The swab was brushed over both palatine tonsils and the posterior oropharyngeal wall [24].
  • Nasal Swab: Collected using a rigid-shaft flocked swab. The swab was inserted only 1-3 cm into the nasal cavity and brushed along the septum and inferior nasal concha with three rotations [24].
• Laboratory Analysis: Each specimen was placed in transport medium and sent for RT-PCR analysis. A subset of samples from one site (24 participants) was analyzed using the same Allplex SARS-CoV-2 assay to allow for comparable Cycle threshold (Ct) value analysis [24].
• Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was test sensitivity. A participant was considered positive if any of the three specimens tested positive. Combined sensitivity was calculated as positive if one or both of the combined specimens were positive [24].

The Multispecimen Study for RSV in Adults

A 2025 multicenter study quantified the increase in RSV detection using multiple specimen types versus NPS alone in hospitalized adults [60].

• Study Population: The study prospectively enrolled 3,669 adults aged ≥40 years hospitalized with acute respiratory illness across 7 US and Canadian hospitals [60].
• Specimen Collection: Researchers collected multiple specimens from participants:
  • NPS: Collected as the single swab standard.
  • Saliva: Self-collected or assisted.
  • Sputa: Expectorated respiratory samples.
  • Paired Sera: Acute and convalescent blood samples to assess serological response [60].
• Laboratory Testing: All specimen types were tested for RSV. The study defined RSV infection based on a positive result from any of the collected specimen types, providing a more robust composite gold standard than NPS alone [60].
• Data Analysis: Detection rates for each specimen type were calculated separately and in combination. Subgroup analyses were performed for specific conditions, such as congestive heart failure exacerbations [60].

Meta-Analysis of RSV Rapid Antigen Detection Tests

A comprehensive 2015 meta-analysis evaluated the accuracy of commercial RSV RADTs, highlighting factors influencing their performance [25].

• Search Strategy & Study Selection: The analysis included 71 studies identified via systematic searches of PubMed and EMBASE. Studies were included if they assessed a commercial RADT against a reference standard (RT-PCR, immunofluorescence, or viral culture) in patients with suspected acute respiratory infection [25].
• Data Extraction & Quality Assessment: Two reviewers independently extracted data to construct 2x2 tables for sensitivity and specificity. The risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool [25].
• Statistical Synthesis: Data were pooled using a bivariate random-effects regression model. Pre-specified subgroup analyses were conducted to investigate heterogeneity, focusing on patient age (children vs. adults), reference standard, and industry sponsorship [25].

Visualizing Workflows and Relationships

Diagnostic Specimen Workflow for Respiratory Viruses

The following diagram illustrates the logical pathway for selecting and evaluating respiratory specimen types in a diagnostic research context.

Relationship Between Test Performance Metrics

This diagram outlines the logical relationships between key statistical metrics and outcomes in diagnostic test evaluation, showing how prevalence, sensitivity, and specificity influence predictive values and clinical risk.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Materials for Respiratory Swab Research

Item	Function & Application	Example Brands/Citations
Flocked Swabs (Flexible Minitip)	Optimal for NPS collection. The design improves specimen release and cellular yield.	COPAN diagnostics Inc. [24]
Flocked Swabs (Rigid-Shaft)	Used for OPS and anterior nares sampling. Provides structural control for oropharyngeal collection.	Meditec A/S [24]
Viral Transport Medium	Preserves viral RNA/DNA integrity during transport and storage before laboratory testing.	Meditec A/S [24]
RT-PCR Assays	Gold-standard molecular test for detecting viral RNA with high sensitivity.	Allplex SARS-CoV-2 Assay (Seegene) [24]
Rapid Antigen Detection Tests (RADTs)	Immunoassays for quick (≤30 min) point-of-care or lab-based viral antigen detection.	TestPack RSV (Abbott), Ortho RSV ELISA, COVID-VIRO ALL IN TRIPLEX [76] [21]
Multiplex RT-PCR Panels	Simultaneous detection of multiple respiratory pathogens (RSV, Influenza, SARS-CoV-2) from a single sample.	Used in triplex test evaluation [21]
Cell Cultures/Shell Vials	Traditional reference standard for detecting replicating virus, though slower than molecular methods.	Referenced as a comparator in historical studies [77] [25]

The accurate and rapid detection of respiratory viruses such as Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), influenza A/B, and SARS-CoV-2 is crucial for clinical management, infection control, and public health surveillance. Molecular point-of-care (POC) tests have revolutionized diagnostic approaches by providing laboratory-quality results in decentralized settings. This comparison guide objectively evaluates the performance of three prominent commercial assays—STANDARD M10 Flu/RSV/SARS-CoV-2, Savanna Respiratory Viral Panel-4, and Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV—with particular emphasis on their applicability for anterior nares swab sampling in RSV detection.

Performance Comparison of Commercial Assays

Diagnostic Accuracy Metrics

The following table summarizes the sensitivity and specificity data for the three assays, as demonstrated in comparative clinical studies.

Table 1: Comparative Diagnostic Performance of STANDARD M10, Savanna, and Xpert Xpress Assays

Virus Target	Assay	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	Reference
Influenza A	STANDARD M10	100.0	~99	[78] [79]
	Savanna	92.6	~99	[78] [79]
	Xpert Xpress	Reference	Reference	[78]
Influenza B	STANDARD M10	95.7	~99	[78] [79]
	Savanna	95.7	~99	[78] [79]
	Xpert Xpress	Reference	Reference	[78]
RSV	STANDARD M10	97.1	~99	[78] [79]
	Savanna	100.0	94.2	[78] [79]
	Xpert Xpress	Reference	Reference	[78]
SARS-CoV-2	STANDARD M10	97.0	~99	[78] [79]
	Savanna	90.9	94.3	[78] [79]
	Xpert Xpress	Reference	Reference	[78]

A separate, large-scale evaluation of the STANDARD M10 assay involving 322 clinical samples reported an overall agreement of 99.4% with Xpert Xpress, with sensitivity and specificity values ranging from 98-100% across all targets. [80] [81] [82]

Analytical and Operational Characteristics

Table 2: Analytical Sensitivity and Operational Features

Characteristic	STANDARD M10	Savanna	Xpert Xpress
Limit of Detection (LoD) for SARS-CoV-2	200 copies/mL (ORF1ab gene) [81] [82]	Information Missing	Information Missing
LoD for Influenza A/B	400 copies/mL [81] [82]	Information Missing	Information Missing
LoD for RSV	800 copies/mL [81] [82]	Information Missing	Information Missing
Hands-on Time	Minimal	Minimal	Minimal
Time to Result	~1 hour [81] [82]	Information Missing	~30 minutes [26]
Test Consolidation	Single cartridge for all targets [81] [82]	Single cartridge for all targets [78] [79]	Separate cartridges for SARS-CoV-2 and Flu/RSV [80] [81]
Conclusion Rate	100% conclusive results [78] [79]	5.0% initial retest rate [78] [79]	Information Missing

Sample Type Considerations: Anterior Nares Swab for RSV Detection

The choice of sample type is a critical factor influencing assay sensitivity, especially for RSV. While nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) are considered the gold standard, anterior nasal swabs (ANS) offer a less invasive alternative that is better tolerated, particularly in pediatric populations. [26] [83]

Recent research directly addresses the performance of ANS for respiratory virus detection. A 2025 study on pediatric patients found that compared to NPS, ANS demonstrated an overall sensitivity of 84.3% for detecting a panel of respiratory viruses. [83] Notably, the sensitivity for RSV specifically was high, reaching up to 100% when the ANS was collected within 24 hours of the NPS. [83] Another 2023 study in children also concluded that anterior nasal samples were more accurate than saliva samples and represent a feasible sample type for PCR-based detection of respiratory viruses. [26]

The technique for collecting ANS impacts performance. One study demonstrated that nasal swabs collected with 10 rubs per nostril yielded SARS-CoV-2 concentrations similar to those from NPS, and performed significantly better than swabs collected with only 5 rubs. [59] This underscores the importance of thorough sampling of the nasal mucosa, a factor that is likely equally critical for the effective detection of RSV.

Experimental Protocols for Performance Evaluation

Clinical Sample Testing Protocol

The comparative data presented in this guide are derived from rigorous retrospective studies. The core methodology is summarized below.

Diagram 1: Experimental Workflow for Assay Comparison

Key Steps in the Protocol:

• Sample Collection and Banking: Residual clinical respiratory samples (e.g., nasopharyngeal or anterior nares swabs in universal transport medium) from patients with suspected respiratory infections are collected. [80] [26] [81] These are archived at -80°C until testing. [80] [81]
• Sample Selection: Studies typically use a cohort of samples pre-characterized by a reference method (e.g., a composite of RT-PCR, immunofluorescence, or viral culture), including a mix of positive samples for each target virus and negative samples. [80] [81] For instance, one evaluation used 215 positive samples (for SARS-CoV-2, IAV, IBV, RSV) and 107 negative samples. [80] [81] [82]
• Parallel Testing: Frozen samples are thawed, vortexed, and aliquoted. A standardized volume (typically 300 µL) is loaded into the cartridges of the index test (e.g., STANDARD M10 or Savanna) and the comparator test (Xpert Xpress) concurrently. [80] [81] This controls for variations in sample quality.
• Data Analysis: Results from the index test are compared against the comparator test. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall percent agreement are calculated for each viral target. [80] [78] [81]

Analytical Sensitivity (Limit of Detection) Testing

The LoD is determined through probit analysis using serial dilutions of known positive samples or standardized molecular controls.

Procedure:

• Preparation of Dilutions: A positive clinical sample or a commercial control material (e.g., AccuPlex SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Controls) is serially diluted in a negative matrix. [84]
• Replicate Testing: Each dilution is tested multiple times (e.g., 5 replicates) with the assay under evaluation. [84]
• Data Modeling: The results are analyzed using probit regression to determine the viral concentration at which the assay detects the target in 95% of replicates. [84] This value is reported as the LoD.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Materials for Respiratory Virus Assay Evaluation

Item	Function/Description	Example Products / Components
Transport Medium	Preserves viral integrity during transport and storage.	Universal Transport Medium (UTM) [26] [59] [84]
Swabs	For sample collection from nasopharynx or anterior nares.	Nylon-flocked swabs [26] [59]
Archived Clinical Samples	Well-characterized samples for retrospective performance evaluation.	Banked NPS or ANS samples stored at -80°C [80] [81]
Molecular Controls	Standardized materials for determining analytical sensitivity (LoD).	AccuPlex SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Controls [84]
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits	(Required for lab-developed tests) Isolates viral RNA/DNA.	QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kits [59]
Reference Assays	Gold-standard tests for comparison and discrepancy resolution.	Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV [80] [78], BioFire Respiratory Panel [26]

The STANDARD M10, Savanna, and Xpert Xpress assays all demonstrate strong performance for the simultaneous detection of major respiratory viruses. The STANDARD M10 and Xpert Xpress assays show exceptionally high sensitivity and specificity across all targets, including RSV. [80] [78] [81] The Savanna assay performs well for influenza A/B but may have limitations for SARS-CoV-2 and RSV due to a higher likelihood of false positives and a notable initial retest rate. [78] [79] For detection from anterior nares swabs, which is crucial for comfortable and widespread testing, evidence confirms that this sample type is a viable alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs for RSV and other viruses, especially when collected thoroughly and in close proximity to symptom onset. [59] [83] The choice between these high-performing assays will ultimately depend on the specific requirements for throughput, time-to-result, cost, and the intended clinical or surveillance application.

Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) is a significant pathogen causing acute lower respiratory tract infections, posing a substantial public health threat to pediatric populations, older adults, and immunocompromised individuals [85]. Globally, RSV causes an estimated 33 million episodes of acute lower respiratory tract illness and 3.6 million hospitalizations annually in children [20]. Accurate detection of RSV is crucial for clinical management, infection control, and public health surveillance, yet diagnostic accuracy is complicated by age-specific variations in viral shedding patterns [85]. The emergence of less invasive sampling methods, particularly anterior nares swabs, represents a significant advancement in diagnostic feasibility, especially for pediatric populations. However, the performance of these methods must be evaluated against the backdrop of well-documented differences in how children and adults shed the virus. This review synthesizes current evidence on the performance of anterior nares swabs for RSV detection, focusing specifically on how age-specific viral shedding kinetics influences diagnostic accuracy across different age groups.

Age-Specific RSV Viral Shedding Kinetics

Understanding the differential viral kinetics between children and adults is fundamental to interpreting diagnostic test performance. Significant age-based variations exist in key parameters of RSV infection, including peak viral load, shedding duration, and viral clearance rates.

Comparative Viral Dynamics

Mathematical modeling of longitudinal viral kinetic data reveals that pediatric patients exhibit a distinctly different pattern of RSV infection compared to adults and the elderly [85]. These differences are quantifiable across several key parameters:

• Peak Viral Load: Pediatric populations demonstrate significantly higher peak viral loads (median = 5.84 log₁₀ PFUe/ml) compared to adults (median = 4.14 log₁₀ PFUe/ml) and the elderly (median = 2.96 log₁₀ PFUe/ml) [85].
• Time to Peak: Children experience an earlier peak viral load (median = 3.09 days) compared to adults and the elderly (both approximately 5 days) [85].
• Viral Clearance: Adults show the fastest rate of viral clearance (median = 2.71 log₁₀(PFUe/ml) per day), while pediatric and elderly groups have slower clearance rates (medians of 1.01 and 0.87 log₁₀(PFUe/ml) per day, respectively) [85].
• Shedding Duration: The pediatric group has the longest expected viral shedding period (median = 14.7 days) when applying a detection limit of 10¹ PFUe/ml, compared to adults (median = 5.3 days) and the elderly (median = 7.8 days) [85].

Table 1: Age-Specific RSV Viral Kinetic Parameters

Parameter	Pediatric Group	Adult Group	Elderly Group
Peak Viral Load (log₁₀ PFUe/ml)	5.84 (median)	4.14 (median)	2.96 (median)
Time to Peak (days)	3.09 (median)	~5 (median)	~5 (median)
Viral Clearance Rate (log₁₀(PFUe/ml)/day)	1.01 (median)	2.71 (median)	0.87 (median)
Shedding Duration (days)	14.7 (median)	5.3 (median)	7.8 (median)

Mechanisms and Implications

The higher viral loads and longer shedding durations observed in pediatric patients are clinically significant for several reasons. Higher initial viral load in children appears to drive the observed differences in peak viral concentration, suggesting possible biological mechanisms related to immune maturation or previous antigenic exposure [85]. From a diagnostic perspective, higher viral loads typically correspond with improved detection sensitivity, potentially explaining why some specimen types with theoretically lower sensitivity (like anterior nares swabs) still perform adequately in pediatric populations. The extended shedding period in children also creates a wider diagnostic window but simultaneously increases transmission potential, underscoring the importance of accurate and timely diagnosis in this population.

Diagnostic Performance of Anterior Nares Swabs

The performance of anterior nares swabs for RSV detection must be evaluated against the gold standard of healthcare provider-collected nasopharyngeal swabs. Current evidence indicates this less invasive method maintains reasonable sensitivity while offering significant practical advantages.

Sensitivity and Specificity Profiles

Multiple studies have quantified the diagnostic accuracy of anterior nares swabs across different age groups and testing platforms:

• Overall Sensitivity for RSV: Anterior nares swabs demonstrate sensitivity ranging from 74% to 94% for RSV detection in children when using RT-PCR, with specificity ≥95% [86]. This compares favorably with other specimen types; for instance, oropharyngeal swabs increase RSV detection by only 5% when added to nasopharyngeal swab RT-PCR [20].
• Comparative Performance: One study of symptomatic children found anterior nares swabs had 94% sensitivity for RSV detection compared to nasopharyngeal aspirates, among the highest sensitivities for respiratory viruses using this method [86].
• Multiplex Testing Performance: In a study evaluating a self-collected oral-nasal swab (which includes anterior nares sampling) for multiplex respiratory virus detection, sensitivity for RSV was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.43-0.95) compared to provider-collected nasopharyngeal swabs, with specificity of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.93-1.00) [22].
• Novel Anterior Nasal Swab Design: A specialized pediatric anterior nasal swab demonstrated high positive percentage agreement (96.2%) and negative percentage agreement (99.8%) compared to combined throat and nasal swabs for respiratory virus detection, including RSV [17].

Table 2: Performance of Anterior Nares Swabs for RSV Detection Across Studies

Study Population	Reference Standard	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	Notes
Children with respiratory symptoms [86]	Nasopharyngeal aspirate with RT-PCR	94	≥95	Single virus detection
Emergency Department patients [22]	Nasopharyngeal swab with multiplex RT-PCR	75	99	Self-collected oral-nasal swab
Children (5-18 years) with respiratory symptoms [17]	Combined throat & nasal swab with RT-PCR	96.2 (PPA)	99.8 (NPA)	Novel anterior nasal swab design

Age-Specific Performance Considerations

The performance of anterior nares swabs appears particularly well-suited to pediatric populations despite theoretical limitations. Higher viral loads in children may compensate for any reduced sensitivity compared to nasopharyngeal sampling, as the substantial viral concentration in the anterior nares remains well above detection thresholds [85] [86]. Additionally, the less invasive nature of anterior nares sampling improves specimen quality in children by reducing procedural anxiety and movement during collection, potentially increasing effective sensitivity in clinical practice [17]. For very young infants in whom nasopharyngeal sampling may be technically challenging or higher-risk, anterior nares swabs offer a valuable alternative with reasonable sensitivity [20].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

To properly interpret performance data for anterior nares swabs, understanding the specific collection and processing methodologies used in validation studies is essential.

Specimen Collection Protocols

• Standard Anterior Nares Collection: For RSV detection, the swab is inserted into the anterior nares (approximately 1-2 cm) until resistance is met at the turbinates, rotated gently against the nasal wall for 5-10 seconds to absorb secretions, then repeated in the other nostril using the same swab [86] [17]. The swab is then placed in appropriate transport media for RT-PCR testing.
• Oral-Nasal Combination Technique: Some protocols combine anterior nares with oropharyngeal sampling, where individuals self-swab the anterior aspect of both nares, followed by the buccal mucosa and tongue using a single flocked swab [22]. This approach aims to increase viral yield while maintaining the advantages of self-collection.
• Novel Pediatric Anterior Swab Protocol: The specialized Rhinoswab Junior device is inserted for 60 seconds, followed by side-to-side movements for 15 seconds in the anterior nasal area, without transport medium [17]. The extended dwell time may improve specimen adequacy.

Laboratory Processing Methods

• Nucleic Acid Extraction and Amplification: Most studies use automated extraction systems (e.g., Roche MagNA Pure 96, Hamilton Star) with viral nucleic acid kits, followed by RT-PCR amplification using virus-specific primers and probes [22] [17]. Cycle threshold (Ct) values <37-40 are typically considered positive.
• Multiplex PCR Panels: For comprehensive respiratory pathogen detection, multiplex assays (e.g., AusDiagnostics Respiratory Pathogens, laboratory-developed multiplex panels) simultaneously test for multiple viruses including RSV, influenza, SARS-CoV-2, and others [22] [17].
• Quality Control Measures: Internal controls (e.g., RNAseP) are incorporated to monitor extraction efficiency and PCR inhibition, with retesting of inhibited samples [22] [17].

Relationship Between Viral Load and Detection Sensitivity

The connection between viral concentration and assay sensitivity is crucial for understanding the differential performance of anterior nares swabs across age groups.

Viral Load and Detection Thresholds

The superior performance of anterior nares swabs in pediatric populations can be partially explained by the relationship between viral load and detection capability. Higher viral loads in children directly increase the likelihood of detection, even with sampling methods that may capture fewer virions [85]. The relationship between total viral load and infectious virus follows a saturation model, where increases in total viral load measured by qPCR correspond to sublinear increases in infectious virus measured by culture assays [85]. This nonlinear relationship means that small differences in viral load near detection thresholds can substantially impact detection probability.

Cycle threshold (Ct) values from RT-PCR provide a semi-quantitative measure of viral load, with lower Ct values indicating higher viral concentrations. Studies comparing anterior nares and nasopharyngeal swabs have found that discordant results (positive on one method but negative on the other) often occur at higher Ct values (>30), corresponding to lower viral loads [22]. This pattern is particularly relevant for adult populations where viral loads are typically lower, potentially explaining the reduced sensitivity of anterior nares swabs in these groups.

Implications for Test Interpretation

The viral load-dependent sensitivity of anterior nares swabs has important implications for test interpretation in different age groups. In high viral shedders (typically children), anterior nares swabs provide excellent sensitivity comparable to nasopharyngeal sampling. In low viral shedders (typically adults), the reduced sensitivity of anterior nares swabs may lead to false negatives, particularly later in the infection course when viral loads are declining. This dynamic underscores the importance of considering both age and timing of specimen collection when interpreting results from anterior nares swabs.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Materials

Conducting rigorous comparisons of RSV detection methods across age groups requires specific reagents, assays, and laboratory materials.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for RSV Detection Studies

Reagent/Material	Specification	Research Application	Examples
Swab Types	Flocked nylon or polyester	Specimen collection from different anatomical sites	Copan FLOQSwabs, Rhinoswab Junior [17]
Transport Media	Viral universal transport media	Preserve specimen integrity during transport	Copan UTM [22]
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits	Automated extraction systems	RNA extraction from clinical specimens	Maxwell HT Viral TNA Kit, QIAamp 96 Virus QIAcube HT Kit [22]
RT-PCR Master Mix	One-step reverse transcription	Viral RNA amplification	Luna Universal Probe One-Step RT q-PCR Kit [22]
RSV-Specific Primers/Probes	Target conserved regions	Specific RSV detection	CDC RSV primers/protocols [87]
Multiplex PCR Panels	Multi-target respiratory panels	Simultaneous detection of respiratory pathogens	AusDiagnostics Respiratory Pathogens panel [17]
Internal Controls	Human or synthetic controls	Monitor extraction and amplification efficiency	RNAseP [22]

The performance of anterior nares swabs for RSV detection is intrinsically linked to age-specific viral shedding patterns, with superior sensitivity observed in pediatric populations where viral loads are higher and shedding duration is longer. While anterior nares sampling demonstrates slightly reduced sensitivity compared to nasopharyngeal swabs in adult populations with lower viral loads, its non-invasive nature, feasibility for self-collection, and high patient acceptability make it a valuable tool for RSV detection across all age groups. Researchers and clinicians should consider these age-specific performance characteristics when selecting sampling methods for diagnostic testing, clinical trials, and public health surveillance. Future studies should focus on optimizing anterior nares sampling protocols specifically for adult and elderly populations where current performance is suboptimal, potentially through technique modifications or enhanced amplification methods.

Upper respiratory tract sampling is crucial for the accurate detection of pathogens like Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV). This guide objectively compares the performance of anterior nares swabs (ANS) against combined nasal-throat sampling techniques, synthesizing current clinical data on sensitivity, specificity, and concordance. Evidence indicates that ANS provides a strong balance of high diagnostic accuracy and superior patient tolerability, particularly in pediatric populations, while combined sampling offers marginal gains for specific viruses like rhinovirus at the cost of increased patient discomfort.

The accurate detection of respiratory viruses, especially Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), hinges on effective sampling of the upper respiratory tract. For years, nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) have been the benchmark for specimen collection, but their invasiveness and patient discomfort have driven the search for alternatives [26]. Anterior nares (nasal) swabs and combined nasal-throat sampling techniques have emerged as prominent, less invasive methods. This guide provides a data-driven comparison of these two approaches, evaluating their concordance, diagnostic performance, and practical implementation within the specific context of RSV detection research. The focus on anterior nares swabs is particularly relevant for developing patient-friendly, yet highly accurate, diagnostic protocols.

Comparative Performance Data

The following tables summarize key quantitative findings from recent clinical studies comparing anterior nares swabs and combined sampling methods against reference standards.

Table 1: Overall Detection Rates and Concordance for Respiratory Viruses

Study & Population	Sample Size	Comparison	Key Metric (Any Respiratory Virus)	Performance Data
Strelitz et al. (2025) [88]Children (<18 years)	743 pairs	MTS vs TS&MTS	Overall Concordance	80.2% (596/743 pairs)
			Discordant Pairs (MTS+/TS&MTS-)	27.9% (41/147)
			Discordant Pairs (TS&MTS+/MTS-)	66.7% (98/147)
Kuypers et al. (2019) [89]Adults (Self-collected)	115 pairs	NS vs TS	Positive by either specimen	71/115 (61.7%)
			Positive by NS only	17/71 (23.9%)
			Positive by TS only	3/71 (4.2%)

Table 2: Sensitivity and Specificity for Target Viruses

Virus	Sampling Method	Sensitivity (%) (95% CI)	Specificity (%) (95% CI)	Study / Context
RSV	Self-collected Oral-Nasal Swab	75.0 (43.0 - 95.0)	99.0 (93.0 - 100.0)	PMC12022927 (2025) [22]
Influenza	Self-collected Oral-Nasal Swab	67.0 (49.0 - 81.0)	96.0 (89.0 - 99.0)	PMC12022927 (2025) [22]
Multiple Viruses	Novel Anterior Nasal Swab (vs CTN*)	96.2 (91.8 - 98.3)	99.8 (99.6 - 99.9)	BMC Pediatrics (2023) [17]

*CTN: Combined Throat and Anterior Nasal swab, used as the reference standard in this study.

Table 3: Viral Load Comparison Between Sampling Sites

Study	Metric	Nasopharyngeal Swab (NPS)	Anterior Nasal Swab (ANS)	Throat Swab (TS)
Kuypers et al. (2019) [89]	Median Ct Value (Concordant Samples)	-	25.1	32.0
Scientific Reports (2021) [62]	Median Viral Load (Copies/mL)	53,560	1,792 (NP-type swab)	-

Detailed Experimental Protocols

To ensure reproducibility and provide insight into experimental design, the methodologies from key cited studies are detailed below.

This protocol evaluates a novel, child-friendly anterior nasal swab (Rhinoswab Junior).

• Population: Symptomatic children (5–18 years) presenting to a tertiary pediatric hospital.
• Study Design: A prospective study where participants were tested with both the novel ANS and the standard combined throat and anterior nasal (CTN) swab in randomized order.
• ANS Collection: The ANS was self-administered by the child or with parental/nurse assistance. The swab, sized according to age, was inserted for 60 seconds, followed by side-to-side movements for 15 seconds in the anterior nasal area. The swab tip was snapped off into a sterile closed container for transport. No transport medium was used.
• CTN Collection (Reference Standard): A study nurse collected the CTN sample using a flocked swab, first swabbing the tonsillar beds and back of the throat for 3–5 seconds, then inserting the same swab into the anterior nares bilaterally, rotating it 5 times against the nasal wall.
• Laboratory Analysis: All samples were eluted in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Nucleic acid extraction was performed on a Roche MagNA Pure 96 system. Multiplex RT-PCR testing was conducted using the AusDiagnostics Respiratory Pathogens 16-well assay, which detects a comprehensive panel of viruses including RSV, influenza, and SARS-CoV-2.

This protocol assesses the additive value of throat swabs to nasal swabs in a self-collection setting.

• Population: Immunocompetent adults with ≤3 days of upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) symptoms.
• Sample Collection: Participants self-collected paired nasal and throat swabs after receiving written instructions and materials.
  • Nasal Swab (NS): After instilling 0.5 mL of normal saline into one nostril, a polyurethane foam swab was inserted and rotated for five seconds.
  • Throat Swab (TS): A nylon flocked swab was used to swab the back of the throat and tonsillar areas 2–3 times. Both swabs were placed in universal transport media.
• Laboratory Analysis: Samples were tested for 12 respiratory viruses using laboratory-developed real-time RT-PCR assays. A cycle threshold (Ct) value of <40 was considered positive.

This large, prospective study compared mid-turbinate nasal swabs (MTS) with a combined throat and MTS specimen (TS&MTS).

• Population: Children under 18 years of age with acute respiratory infection symptoms presenting to Seattle Children's Hospital.
• Sample Collection: Participants provided both an MTS specimen and a TS&MTS specimen. The collection order was not specified as a controlled variable.
• Laboratory Analysis: Respiratory viruses were detected using the NxTAG Respiratory Pathogen Panel (Luminex Corporation). For the most common discordant virus (rhinovirus), droplet digital RT-PCR (ddRT-PCR) was used to quantify the viral load, providing a more precise measurement than standard Ct values.

Methodological Workflow and Reagents

The following diagram and table outline the core experimental workflow and essential reagents used in these comparative studies.

Diagram Title: Workflow for Comparative Concordance Studies

Table 4: Research Reagent Solutions and Essential Materials

Item	Function / Application	Specific Examples / Properties
Flocked Swabs	Sample collection; designed to maximize specimen absorption and release.	Nylon-flocked swabs (e.g., Copan FLOQSwabs) [17] [62].
Transport Media	Preserves viral integrity during transport from collection site to lab.	Universal Transport Media (UTM) [26] [22] [62].
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits	Isolates viral RNA/DNA from the specimen for downstream analysis.	Maxwell HT Viral TNA Kit [22], Roche MagNA Pure 96 DNA and Viral NA kits [17].
PCR Master Mixes	Enzymes and reagents for reverse transcription and DNA amplification.	Luna Universal Probe One-Step RT q-PCR kit [22], THUNDERBIRD Probe One-step qRT-PCR Kit [62].
Multiplex PCR Panels	Simultaneously detects multiple respiratory pathogens in a single reaction.	BioFire Respiratory Panel 2.1 plus [26], AusDiagnostics Respiratory Pathogens assay [17].

Discussion and Research Implications

Key Findings and Interpretation

The synthesized data reveals a nuanced landscape. For many viruses, including RSV and influenza, anterior nasal swabs demonstrate high diagnostic agreement with combined sampling or nasopharyngeal standards [26] [17]. However, the choice of method involves trade-offs. Combined nasal-throat sampling detects more rhinovirus cases [88], but these often have low viral loads, and their clinical significance can be uncertain. Conversely, anterior nasal swabs consistently yield samples with higher viral loads compared to throat swabs alone, which can translate to more reliable detection, particularly in self-collection settings [89].

A critical advantage of anterior nares swabs is their superior tolerability. Multiple studies highlight that ANS collection is significantly more comfortable for patients, especially children, causing less pain and inducing fewer coughs or sneezes compared to more invasive methods [90] [17] [62]. This improved patient experience is vital for increasing testing compliance and facilitating self-collection. Furthermore, the high specificity of ANS (often >99%) makes it an excellent tool for ruling in disease, a crucial characteristic for infection control and treatment decisions [90] [17].

Implications for Research and Development

For researchers and drug development professionals, these findings have several implications:

• Protocol Design: Anterior nares swabs present a robust, patient-centric option for longitudinal studies or clinical trials where repeated sampling is required.
• Self-Testing Applications: The high sensitivity and user-friendliness of ANS support their use in decentralized trial models or community-based surveillance.
• Viral Load Considerations: The consistently higher viral loads in nasal samples make them preferable for studies quantifying infectiousness or monitoring viral kinetics.

Both anterior nares and combined nasal-throat sampling techniques are valid for respiratory virus detection. The choice between them should be guided by study objectives, target pathogens, and patient population. Anterior nares swabs offer an optimal combination of high sensitivity (particularly for RSV and influenza), exceptional specificity, superior patient comfort, and operational simplicity. Combined nasal-throat sampling may be reserved for studies where detecting a broadest possible range of pathogens, including rhinovirus, is the absolute priority, and where the added complexity and patient discomfort are justifiable.

Conclusion

The evidence confirms that anterior nares swabs are a highly viable and patient-centric sample type for RSV detection, with performance closely approximating that of nasopharyngeal swabs when paired with sensitive molecular methods like RT-PCR and novel isothermal assays. Key strategies to maximize detection rates include employing multi-specimen testing protocols and utilizing high-sensitivity, rapid point-of-care platforms. Future directions for research should focus on standardizing collection protocols, further validating emerging technologies like RT-RAA in diverse clinical settings, and integrating machine learning for intelligent testing pathways. For researchers and drug developers, these advancements underscore the critical role of optimized anterior nares testing in improving diagnostic accuracy, enhancing patient enrollment in clinical trials, and informing the development of novel therapeutics and vaccines.

References

• 1. Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) [https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/respiratory-syncytial-virus-(rsv)]
• 2. The Global Burden of RSV [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-global-burden-of-rsv/]
• 3. Clinical Overview of RSV [https://www.cdc.gov/rsv/hcp/clinical-overview/index.html]
• 4. Respiratory Syncytial Virus Epidemiology and Clinical ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12480153/]
• 5. Non-invasive sample collection for respiratory testing by... virus [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21855405/]
• 6. Effectiveness and user experience of nose and throat swabbing ... [https://bmcglobalpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s44263-024-00121-x]
• 7. Real‐World Effectiveness of Nirsevimab in Preventing RSV ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12574617/]
• 8. Virus Replication - PMC - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7149683/]
• 9. Virus replication [https://www.immunology.org/public-information/bitesized-immunology/pathogens-disease/virus-replication]
• 10. Replication and Clearance of Respiratory Syncytial Virus [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1850917/]
• 11. Viral Infection - Viral Structure - Viral Replication [https://teachmephysiology.com/immune-system/infections/viral-infection/]
• 12. Visualizing the replication of respiratory syncytial virus in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6104]
• 13. Viral load may impact the diagnostic performance of nasal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9359764/]
• 14. Head-to-head comparison of anterior nares and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11934397/]
• 15. Performance of anterior nares and tongue swabs for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971222000868]
• 16. Nasopharyngeal Swab vs Nasal Swab: Comparing Methods [https://blog.puritanmedproducts.com/nasopharyngeal-swab-vs-nasal-swab]
• 17. A novel anterior nasal swab to detect respiratory viruses [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10139914/]
• 18. Correctly performed nasal swabs - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7994961/]
• 19. Detection by Nasopharyngeal Swabs Alone Underestimates ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12308649/]
• 20. Pediatric Respiratory Syncytial Virus Diagnostic Testing ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10681870/]
• 21. Diagnostic accuracy of a rapid antigen triple test (SARS ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666991923001318]
• 22. Validation of oral-nasal specimen collection for influenza ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12022927/]
• 23. Effectiveness of Self-Collected, Ambient Temperature ... [https://formative.jmir.org/2023/1/e32848/]
• 24. Head-to-Head Comparison of Nasopharyngeal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9857511/]
• 25. Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Detection Tests for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4652120/]
• 26. Saliva and Anterior Nasal Samples for Detecting ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12606524/]
• 27. Multicenter Clinical Comparison of the 10 Minute AMDI™ ... [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.11.04.25339522v1.full]
• 28. Comparative Analysis of RT-PCR and a Colloidal Gold ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12154499/]
• 29. RT-RAA technology for rapid early RSV identification and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12436364/]
• 30. RSV Testing Patterns and Characteristics Associated with ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12480313/]
• 31. Evaluation of recombinase-based isothermal amplification ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8572376/]
• 32. Multiple-centre clinical evaluation of an ultrafast single-tube ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7227500/]
• 33. Real-Time Reverse Transcription Recombinase-Aided ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/23/23/15269]
• 34. Development of a reverse transcription recombinase ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S089085081930009X]
• 35. Isothermal Amplification Techniques Gain Momentum [https://www.meridianbioscience.com/lifescience-blog/isothermal-amplification-techniques-gain-momentum/]
• 36. The Sensitivity and Specificity of Loop-Mediated Isothermal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8826321/]
• 37. Research Days: Viral Detection in Anterior Nasal Swabs ... [https://scholarlyexchange.childrensmercy.org/researchdays/GME_Research_Days_2025/ResearchDay5/10/]
• 38. Towards practical point-of-care quick, ubiquitous ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41378-025-01057-4]
• 39. Molecular Point-of-Care Assay Development [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38884351/]
• 40. Extraction-Free Rapid Cycle Quantitative RT-PCR and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8386134/]
• 41. Comparison of digital PCR platforms using the molecular ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10326530/]
• 42. Sensitivity and specificity of surveillance case definitions ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11753188/]
• 43. Analytical performance evaluation of a multiplex real-time RT ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12317686/]
• 44. A sensitive and affordable multiplex RT-qPCR assay for SARS ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001030]
• 45. Detection of Influenza A Viruses from Different Species by ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC87547/]
• 46. Direct Detection of Respiratory Syncytial Virus ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC105291/]
• 47. Multiplex PCR Detection of Respiratory Tract Infections in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9603986/]
• 48. A multiplex qRT-PCR assay for detection of Influenza A ... [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.12.13.23298992v1]
• 49. Diagnostic Performance of a Combined Rapid Antigen Test for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12265398/]
• 50. Diagnostic Performance of a Combined Rapid Antigen Test ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40879159/]
• 51. Comparison of nasopharyngeal aspirate and nasal swab ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11952947/]
• 52. Improving the accuracy of Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV ... [https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-025-11292-9]
• 53. Key Insights into Respiratory Virus Testing: Sensitivity and ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/13/1/63]
• 54. "Viral Detection in Anterior Nasal Swabs Versus ... [https://scholarlyexchange.childrensmercy.org/posters/441/]
• 55. Relative sensitivity of anterior nares and nasopharyngeal ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0254559]
• 56. The impact of viral dynamics on the clinical severity of infants ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7166664/]
• 57. Saliva Has High Sensitivity and Specificity for Detecting ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/15/15/1918]
• 58. Laboratory testing for respiratory viruses for the clinician [https://www.ccjm.org/content/91/9_suppl_1/S42]
• 59. Comparison of Nasal Swabs, Nasopharyngeal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10151282/]
• 60. The Multispecimen Study's Final Analysis [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40250971/]
• 61. The Use of Multiple Specimen Types in RSV Testing May ... [https://www.infectiousdiseaseadvisor.com/news/rsv-testing-performance-and-detection-rates-improve-additional-specimen-types/]
• 62. Diagnostic performance and characteristics of anterior ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-90026-8]
• 63. Simultaneous Detection and Differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12428728/]
• 64. One assay to test them all: Multiplex assays for expansion ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2023.1161268/full]
• 65. Reducing Invasive RSV Diagnostic Testing with Machine ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876034125003168]
• 66. Reducing invasive RSV diagnostic testing with machine ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40930007/]
• 67. Online Transfer Learning for RSV Case Detection [https://arxiv.org/html/2402.01987v2]
• 68. Epidemiological analysis and Machine Learning Prediction ... [https://eudl.eu/doi/10.4108/eai.28-4-2025.2357823]
• 69. A machine learning classifier using 33 host immune response ... [https://genomemedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13073-023-01216-0]
• 70. Relative sensitivity of anterior nares and nasopharyngeal swabs for initial detection of SARS-CoV-2 in ambulatory patients: Rapid review and meta-analysis - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34283845/]
• 71. How to Swab for RSV: The Complete Swab Test Guide [https://blog.puritanmedproducts.com/rsv-swab-test]
• 72. Nasal Swab Performance by Collection Timing, Procedure ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8373031/]
• 73. Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Specimen Types [https://health.ucdavis.edu/blog/lab-best-practice/comparison-of-sars-cov-2-specimen-types-nasal-swabs-nasopharyngeal-swabs-and-beyond/2021/09]
• 74. Optimizing the sensitivity of detection of respiratory ... [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.09.18.25336083v1]
• 75. SARS-CoV-2 Viral Shedding and Rapid Antigen Test ... [https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/wr/mm7316a2.htm]
• 76. Comparison of two rapid methods for detection ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC269833/]
• 77. A comparison of Thermo Electron™ RSV OIA® to viral ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1386653204002033]
• 78. Comparative evaluation of STANDARD™ M10 Flu/RSV ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386653225000691]
• 79. Comparative evaluation of STANDARD™ M10 Flu/RSV ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40513219/]
• 80. Comparative Evaluation of a Standard M10 Assay with ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38066748/]
• 81. Comparative Evaluation of a Standard M10 Assay with ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/13/23/3507]
• 82. Comparative Evaluation of a Standard M10 Assay with ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10706428/]
• 83. Anterior nasal swabs compared to nasopharyngeal ... [https://scholarlyexchange.childrensmercy.org/papers/6624/]
• 84. Comparison of the Clinical Performance of the Point ... [https://www.annlabmed.org/journal/view.html?doi=10.3343/alm.2023.43.1.111]
• 85. Relating in vivo RSV infection kinetics to host infectiousness in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11601762/]
• 86. Non-invasive sample collection for respiratory virus testing ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1386653211003143]
• 87. Respiratory Viral Detection in Children and Adults [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4721902/]
• 88. Comparison of mid-turbinate nasal and combined ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1386653225000435]
• 89. Evaluating addition of self-collected throat swabs to nasal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6587583/]
• 90. Evaluation of a New Standardized Nasal Sampling Method ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10820932/]