ReviewJournal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA2020
New COVID-19 saliva-based test: How good is it compared with the current nasopharyngeal or throat swab test?
Review in Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.
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
33 citing papers in PubMed, 63 citations in OpenAlex.
- Increase in Healthcare-Associated Infections: Is COVID-19 Responsible? A Narrative Review.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in saliva by quantitative PCR: A potential alternative specimen for pulmonary tuberculosis diagnosis.Tuberculosis (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2024Article
- Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 clusters in three schools in Beijing, China: A retrospective study.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Development of a Diagnostic Microfluidic Chip for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Samples.Viruses · 2024Article
- Factors Associated with Prolonged SARS-CoV-2 Viral Positivity in an Italian Cohort of Hospitalized Patients.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Evaluation of self-collected nasal, urine, and saliva samples for molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 using an EUA approved RT-PCR assay and a laboratory developed LAMP SARS-CoV-2 test.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 2024Article
- Influenza A, like Omicron SARS-CoV-2, Is Similarly Detected in Saliva or Nasopharyngeal Samples via RT-qPCR.Viruses · 2023Article
- Saliva-based microfluidic point-of-care diagnostic.Theranostics · 2023Review
- Comparing SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load in Human Saliva to Oropharyngeal Swabs, Nasopharyngeal Swabs, and Sputum: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2023Review
- Covid 19 Pandemic-Training of Healthcare Workers in Obtaining a Nasopharyngeal Swab: Our Experience.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2022Article
- Saliva as an alternative specimen to nasopharyngeal swabs for COVID-19 diagnosis: Review.Access microbiology · 2022Review
- Review
- Review
- Detection and Stability of SARS-CoV-2 in Three Self-Collected Specimen Types: Flocked Midturbinate Swab (MTS) in Viral Transport Media, Foam MTS, and Saliva.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Rapid antigen testing by community health workers for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Dhaka, Bangladesh: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Label-Free Spectroscopic SARS-CoV-2 Detection on Versatile Nanoimprinted Substrates.Nano letters · 2022Article
- Cost-effective proactive testing strategies during COVID-19 mass vaccination: A modelling study.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2022Article
- Small form factor flow virometer for SARS-CoV-2.Biomedical optics express · 2022Article
- Evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test as a self-test: Diagnostic performance and usability.Journal of medical virology · 2021Article
- The interface between COVID-19 and bacterial healthcare-associated infections.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As of April 15, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration has granted emergency use authorization to a first saliva test for diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, the device developed by RUCDR Infinite Biologics laboratory, Rutgers University. A key feature that distinguishes the saliva-based test from nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal (throat) swabs is that this kit allows self-collection and can spare healthcare professionals to be at risk during collecting nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal samples, thereby preserving personal protective equipment for use in patient care rather than sampling and testing. Consequently, broader testing than the current methods of nasal or throat swabs will significantly increase the number of people screening, leading to more effective control of the spread of COVID-19. Nonetheless, a comparison of saliva-based assay with current swab test is needed to understand what and how we can benefit from this newly developed assay. Therefore, in this mini-review article, we aimed to summarize the current and emerging tools, focusing on diagnostic power of different clinical sampling and specimens.
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.