Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Evaluating User Experience and DNA Yield from Self-Collection Devices.
Blommel, Joseph H; Roforth, Matthew M; Jerde, Calvin R; Karsten, Carley A; Bridgeman, Amber R; Voss, Jesse S; Boccuto, Luigi; Ivankovic, Diana S; Sarasua, Sara M; Kipp, Benjamin R; Murphy, Stephen J.
Affiliation
  • Blommel JH; Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
  • Roforth MM; Healthcare Genetics Program, School of Nursing, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, United States.
  • Jerde CR; Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
  • Karsten CA; Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
  • Bridgeman AR; Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
  • Voss JS; Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
  • Boccuto L; Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
  • Ivankovic DS; Healthcare Genetics Program, School of Nursing, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, United States.
  • Sarasua SM; Healthcare Genetics Program, School of Nursing, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, United States.
  • Kipp BR; Healthcare Genetics Program, School of Nursing, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, United States.
  • Murphy SJ; Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
J Appl Lab Med ; 9(4): 704-715, 2024 Jul 01.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38767175
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

The COVID-19 pandemic emphasized an urgent need for devices used in the self-collection of biospecimens in an evolving patient care system. The mailing of biospecimen self-collection kits to patients, with samples returned via mail, provides a more convenient testing regimen, but could also impart patient sampling variabilities. User compliance with device directions is central to downstream testing of collected biospecimens and clear instructions are central to this goal.

METHODS:

Here, we performed an evaluation of 10 oral DNA collection devices involving either swab or saliva self-collection and analyzed ease of use and comfort level with a device, as well as DNA recovery quantity/quality and sample stability.

RESULTS:

We show that while these DNA quality/quantity metrics are comparable between devices, users prefer direct saliva collection over swab-based devices.

CONCLUSIONS:

This information is useful in guiding future experiments including their use in human RNA, microbial, or viral sample collection/recovery and their use in clinical testing.
Subject(s)

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Saliva / Specimen Handling / SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: J Appl Lab Med Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Publication country: ENGLAND / ESCOCIA / GB / GREAT BRITAIN / INGLATERRA / REINO UNIDO / SCOTLAND / UK / UNITED KINGDOM

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Saliva / Specimen Handling / SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: J Appl Lab Med Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Publication country: ENGLAND / ESCOCIA / GB / GREAT BRITAIN / INGLATERRA / REINO UNIDO / SCOTLAND / UK / UNITED KINGDOM