Comparison of flocked swabs (E-swabs; Copan) to the standard rayon swabs (Copan) was undertaken for detection of Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage among staff at Dorevitch Pathology in Heidelberg, Melbourne, Australia. Among 100 volunteers, 36 were found to be colonized with S. aureus by one or both swab results. The prevalence detected by E-swabs was 35%, and the prevalence through rayon swabs was 34% (95% confidence interval [CI] for the difference in proportions, ؊12 to 14). Thirty-three volunteers tested positive with both types of swabs, while 2 were detected on E-swabs alone and another on rayon swab testing alone. There was no evidence of a significant difference in carriage detected by E-swabs or rayon swabs.Staphylococcus aureus is a common cause of infections in the community and a major cause of hospital-associated morbidity (18). Colonization is well described, with up to 30% of the population thought to be carriers (7,16,18), and is associated with a higher risk of infection in the hospital setting (2,4,9,11,12,15,17,18). The anterior nares have been shown to be the most frequent site of carriage and therefore a single site for detection (9,10,18). Nasal carriage is defined as "persistent" or "intermittent or noncarriage," with persistent carriers showing an increased risk of infection, compared with intermittent carriers who share the same low risk as noncarriers (13). Given the clinical relevance, it is imperative to use the best swab system which would provide the highest yield in detecting nasal carriage. Flocked swabs have been described as improving uptake of epithelial cells and, therefore, microorganisms and viruses (1,5,6,14), but are more expensive than standard rayon swabs, so it is therefore worth investigating whether there is evidence that E-swabs perform better in detecting nasal carriage.Aims. This study was designed to determine if there is a difference in the performance of E-swabs over standard rayon swabs in detecting nasal carriage of S. aureus among healthy adult staff volunteers at a pathology service in Melbourne, Australia.Ethics approval was gained from The University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee (identification no. 0826852). Volunteers were recruited from staff based at Dorevitch Pathology in Melbourne.All volunteers were sequentially allocated a study identification number, and individual results remained anonymous. Each volunteer had sampling from each naris with both swabs (E-swab and Rayon swab; Copan). To ensure that equal numbers of participants were swabbed with each swab type, participants with odd study numbers were sampled with an E-swab first (right then left naris) followed by the rayon swab and those with even study numbers were swabbed in the reverse order. The swab sequence was therefore captured in the study identification number, allowing us to investigate whether swab sequence was important and to control for potential bias associated with swab sequence. Laboratory staff involved in isolating S. aureus were blinded to the swabbing seque...