ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2017
Comparison between Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens for Detection of Respiratory Viruses by Multiplex Reverse Transcription-PCR.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
82 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparison of detection rate of 16 sampling methods for respiratory viruses: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of clinical data and systematic review.BMJ global health · 2020Pooled it
- Saliva as a Candidate for COVID-19 Diagnostic Testing: A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Saliva as a Reliable and Non-invasive Sample for Detecting Influenza A in Severe Acute Respiratory Infection Cases.Cureus · 2026Article
- Point-of-need one-pot multiplexed RT-LAMP test for detecting three common respiratory viruses in saliva.Biosensors & bioelectronics · 2025Article
- Detection of Respiratory Pathogens in Saliva and Mouthwash Samples in Children.Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society · 2025Article
- Accuracy of saliva tests for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis during the pandemic in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Saliva Has High Sensitivity and Specificity for Detecting SARS-CoV-2 Compared to Nasal Swabs but Exhibits Different Viral Dynamics from Days of Symptom Onset.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Colorimetric RT-LAMP for SARS-CoV-2 detection from nasopharyngeal swabs or crude saliva: a multicountry diagnostic accuracy study in Africa.The Lancet. Global health · 2025Article
- Saliva as a Diagnostic Tool for Systemic Diseases-A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Application of oral fluid for quantitative nucleic acid and antibody detection of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Review
- Respiratory adenovirus infections in children: a focus on Africa.Current opinion in pediatrics · 2024Review
- Article
- Influenza A, like Omicron SARS-CoV-2, Is Similarly Detected in Saliva or Nasopharyngeal Samples via RT-qPCR.Viruses · 2023Article
- Establishment of a consensus protocol to explore the brain pathobiome in patients with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease: Research outline and call for collaboration.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2023Review
- Comparison of "hock-a-loogie" saliva versus nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for detecting common respiratory pathogens.Heliyon · 2023Article
- The potential of saliva as an accessible and sensitive sample type for the detection of respiratory pathogens and host immunity.The Lancet. Microbe · 2023Review
- Comparison of Nasal Swabs, Nasopharyngeal Swabs, and Saliva Samples for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 and other Respiratory Virus Infections.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2023Article
22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPSs) are being widely used as specimens for multiplex real-time reverse transcription (RT)-PCR for respiratory virus detection. However, it remains unclear whether NPS specimens are optimal for all viruses targeted by multiplex RT-PCR. In addition, the procedure to obtain NPS specimens causes coughing in most patients, which possibly increases the risk of nosocomial spread of viruses. In this study, paired NPS and saliva specimens were collected from 236 adult male patients with suspected acute respiratory illnesses. Specimens were tested for 16 respiratory viruses by multiplex real-time RT-PCR. Among the specimens collected from the 236 patients, at least 1 respiratory virus was detected in 183 NPS specimens (77.5%) and 180 saliva specimens (76.3%). The rates of detection of respiratory viruses were comparable for NPS and saliva specimens (P = 0.766). Nine virus species and 349 viruses were isolated, 256 from NPS specimens and 273 from saliva specimens (P = 0.1574). Adenovirus was detected more frequently in saliva samples (P < 0.0001), whereas influenza virus type A and human rhinovirus were detected more frequently in NPS specimens (P = 0.0001 and P = 0.0289, respectively). The possibility of false-positive adenovirus detection from saliva samples was excluded by direct sequencing. In conclusion, neither of the sampling methods was consistently more sensitive than the other. We suggest that these cost-effective methods for detecting respiratory viruses in mixed NPS-saliva specimens might be valuable for future studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.