Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33220456›Full record

ReviewTravel medicine and infectious disease

Saliva as a possible tool for the SARS-CoV-2 detection: A review.

Régia Carla Medeiros da Silva, Liliane Cristina Nogueira Marinho, Davi Neto de Araújo Silva, Kenio Costa de Lima, Flavia Queiroz Pirih, Ana Rafaela Luz de Aquino Martins

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Travel medicine and infectious disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Ultrasensitive assay for saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection.Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Diagnostic techniques for COVID-19: A mini-review.Journal of virological methods · 2022
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Régia Carla Medeiros da SilvaDentistry Department, Rio Grande Do Norte Federal University, Natal, RN, Brazil. Electronic address: regia.carla20@gmail.com.
Liliane Cristina Nogueira MarinhoDentistry Department, Rio Grande Do Norte Federal University, Natal, RN, Brazil. Electronic address: liliane_marinho@hotmail.com.
Davi Neto de Araújo SilvaDentistry Department, Rio Grande Do Norte Federal University, Natal, RN, Brazil. Electronic address: davinetoaraujo@yahoo.com.br.
Kenio Costa de LimaDentistry Department, Rio Grande Do Norte Federal University, Natal, RN, Brazil. Electronic address: limke@uol.com.br.
Flavia Queiroz PirihDentistry Department, Rio Grande Do Norte Federal University, Natal, RN, Brazil. Electronic address: fpirih@dentistry.ucla.edu.
Ana Rafaela Luz de Aquino MartinsDentistry Department, Rio Grande Do Norte Federal University, Natal, RN, Brazil. Electronic address: anarafaela.luz@terra.com.br.
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSalivary tests for the new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) diagnosis have been suggested as alternative methods for the nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal tests.

methodTwo reviewers independently performed a search in the following electronic databases: PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase and Scopus to identify cross-sectional and cohort studies that used saliva samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection. The search strategy was: ("saliva") and ("SARS-CoV-2" or "coronavirus" or "COVID-1").

resultsA total of 363 studies were identified and 39 were selected for review. Salivary samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection was as consistent and sensitive as the nasopharyngeal swabs in most studies, having been effective in detecting asymptomatic infections previously tested negative in nasopharyngeal samples. Viral nucleic acids found in saliva obtained from the duct of the salivary gland may indicate infection in that gland. Live viruses could be detected in saliva by viral culture.

conclusionsSalivary samples show great potential in SARS-CoV-2 detection and may be recommended as a simple and non-invasive alternative.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 TestingHumansNasopharynxSalivaSARS-CoV-2Viral LoadCoronavirus infectionsReviewSaliva

Identifiers

PMID33220456
PMCPMC7674016
OpenAlexW3107956105

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.