ArticleJournal of medical virology2021
COVID-19 screening test by using random oropharyngeal saliva.
Article in Journal of medical virology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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
- COVID-19 on Oral Health: A New Bilateral Connection for the Pandemic.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Saliva as a diagnostic specimen for SARS-CoV-2 detection: A scoping review.Oral diseases · 2022Article
- The Coronavirus Disease 2019 Spatial Care Path: Home, Community, and Emergency Diagnostic Portals.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- [SARS-CoV-2 variants in relation to screening and vaccines].Bulletin de l'Academie nationale de medecine · 2022Review
- Development and implementation of a simple and rapid extraction-free saliva SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP workflow for workplace surveillance.PloS one · 2022Article
- A narrative review of exploring potential salivary biomarkers in respiratory diseases: still on its way.Journal of thoracic disease · 2021Review
- COVID-19 screening test by using random oropharyngeal saliva.Journal of medical virology · 2021Article
- One-Year Update on Salivary Diagnostic of COVID-19.Frontiers in public health · 2021Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
An optimal clinical specimen for accurate detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by minimizing the usage of consumables and reduce hazard exposure to healthcare workers is an urgent priority. The diagnostic performance of SARS-CoV-2 detection between healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal (NP + OP) swabs and patient performed self-collected random saliva was assessed. Paired NP + OP swabs and random saliva were collected and processed within 48 h of specimen collection from two cohort studies which recruited 562 asymptomatic adult candidates. Real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction targeting Open reading frame 1a (ORF1a) and nucleocapsid (N) genes was performed and the results were compared. Overall, 65 of 562 (28.1%) candidates tested positive for COVID-19 based on random saliva, NP + OP swabs, or both testing techniques. The detection rate of SARS-CoV-2 was higher in random saliva compared to NP + OP testing (92.3%; 60/65 vs. 73.8%; 48/65; p < .05). The estimated sensitivity and specificity of random saliva were higher than NP + OP swabs (95.0; 99.9 vs. 72.2; 99.4). The C
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.