ArticleClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2021
Comparing Nasopharyngeal Swab and Early Morning Saliva for the Identification of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).
Article in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04578509 (Evaluation of a Screening Program for SARS-CoV-2 Infection in the General Population Based on the Use of New Detection Approaches or for Diagnostic Orientation on Saliva), which is not on this map. Cited by 99 papers, 10 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.
Evaluation of a Screening Program for SARS-CoV-2 Infection in the General Population Based on the Use of New Detection Approaches or for Diagnostic Orientation on Saliva (COVID-19)
Who cites it
99 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Molecular Diagnostic Testing (December 2023).Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024Guideline
- Double-Negative Results Matter: A Reevaluation of Sensitivities for Detecting SARS-CoV-2 Infection Using Saliva Versus Nasopharyngeal Swabs.American journal of epidemiology · 2024Pooled it
- SARS-CoV-2 saliva testing using RT-PCR: a systematic review.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2022Pooled it
- Is saliva collected passively without forceful coughing sensitive to detect SARS-CoV-2 in ambulatory cases? A systematic review.Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology · 2022Pooled it
- The diagnostic accuracy of RT-PCR from self-collected saliva versus nasopharyngeal sampling: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Saudi medical journal · 2022Pooled it
- Performance of Saliva, Oropharyngeal Swabs, and Nasal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2021Pooled it
- The Sensitivity and Costs of Testing for SARS-CoV-2 Infection With Saliva Versus Nasopharyngeal Swabs : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Annals of internal medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Comparison of Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Swab Nucleic Acid Amplification Testing for Detection of SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA internal medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Screening for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR: Saliva or nasopharyngeal swab? Rapid review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive SARS-CoV-2 screening tests: a national prospective analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Trial
- Efficacy of three antimicrobial mouthwashes in reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the saliva of hospitalized patients: a randomized controlled pilot study.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Integrative insights into the oral microbiome's role in systemic diseases: novel therapeutic strategies and future directions.Antonie van Leeuwenhoek · 2025Review
- SARS-CoV-2 secondary attack rates and risks for transmission among agricultural workers and their households in Guatemala, 2022-2023.IJID regions · 2025Article
- Direct detection and identification of viruses in saliva using a SpecID ionization modified mass spectrometer.PloS one · 2025Article
- Saliva-STAT: Sample-to-answer saliva test for COVID-19.Sensors and actuators. B, Chemical · 2024Article
- Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in different types of clinical specimens among suspected COVID-19 patients in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Virusdisease · 2024Article
- Exploring School Staff's Perceptions About Implementing Saliva-Based Testing.Public health challenges · 2024Article
- SalivaDirect: an alternative to a conventional RNA extraction protocol for molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a clinical setting.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Point-of-care testing for COVID-19: a simple two-step molecular diagnostic development and validation during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz · 2024Article
39 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe ideal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARs-CoV-2) testing method would be accurate and also be patient-performed to reduce exposure to healthcare workers. The aim of this study was to compare patient-performed testing based on a morning saliva sample with the current standard testing method, healthcare worker-collected sampling via a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS).
methodsThis was a prospective single center study which recruited 217 asymptomatic adult male participants in a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) quarantine center who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 8-10 days prior to isolation. Paired NPS and saliva specimens were collected and processed within 5 hours of sample collection. Real time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) targeting Envelope (E) and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) genes was performed and the results were compared.
resultsOverall, 160 of the 217 (74%) participants tested positive for COVID-19 based on saliva, NPS, or both testing methods. The detection rate for SARS-CoV-2 was higher in saliva compared to NPS testing (93.1%, 149/160 vs 52.5%, 84/160, P < .001). The concordance between the 2 tests was 45.6% (virus was detected in both saliva and NPS in 73/160), whereas 47.5% were discordant (87/160 tested positive for 1 whereas negative for the other). The cycle threshold (Ct) values for E and RdRp genes were significantly lower in saliva specimens compared to NP swab specimens.
conclusionsOur findings demonstrate that saliva is a better alternative specimen for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Taking into consideration, the simplicity of specimen collection, shortage of PPE and the transmissibility of the virus, saliva could enable self-collection for an accurate SARS-CoV-2 surveillance testing.
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.