You are presented with a paragraph from a COVID-19 literature. Classify the topics of this piece of text by choosing from the following categories:

- Epidemic Forecasting: The content relates to predictions about the spread of COVID-19.
- Treatment: The paragraph discusses therapeutic methods or medication for COVID-19.
- Prevention: The content covers measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
- Mechanism: The paragraph explains the biological mechanisms of the virus.
- Case Report: The content is a report of a COVID-19 case.
- Transmission: The paragraph discusses how COVID-19 is transmitted.
- Diagnosis: The content is about diagnosing COVID-19 in individuals.

Your classification should be provided as an element within a JSON array. The array should be formatted with topics enclosed in double quotes and separated by commas, following the JSON format, for example: ["Topic1", "Topic2", ...]. Include all applicable topics within the array. Your output should be a valid JSON array, and no additional text should be included in your response.

Article:

Rapid and accurate diagnostic testing is essential to bring the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic to an end. As the demand for SARS-CoV-2 testing continues to increase amid supply shortages, many laboratories have investigated the use of sources other than nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs. Saliva and mid-turbinate nasal swabs are attractive alternatives as they allow for self-collection and are well-accepted by patients. Saliva also requires limited consumables. We compared the performance of health care provider-collected NP swabs, patient-collected mid-turbinate (MT) swabs, and patient-collected saliva specimens for SARS-CoV-2 detection using a laboratory developed PCR assay that had received Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA. Of 281 total evaluable samples, 33 (11.7%) NP swabs, 33 (11.7%) MT swabs, and 32 (11.4%) saliva specimens were positive for SARS-CoV-2 following resolution of discordant results. When compared to NP swabs, saliva exhibited a sensitivity of 90.9% (30/33) and specificity of 99.2% (246/248), while patient-collected MT swabs exhibited a sensitivity of 93.9% (31/33) and specificity of 99.2% (246/248). When comparing to the consensus standard, the sensitivity was 100% (31/31) for both NP and MT swabs and 96.8% (30/31) for saliva specimens, while specificity was the same in both NP swabs and saliva specimens (98.8% [247/250]) and 99.2% (248/250) for MT swabs. Pre-treatment of saliva with proteinase K and heating for 15 minutes prior to extraction reduced the invalid rate from 26.7% (52/195) to 0% (0/195). These data show that patient-collected mid-turbinate nasal swabs and saliva are suitable sources for self-collection in individuals who require routine monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 infection.
["Diagnosis"]