ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2021
Performance of Saliva Specimens for the Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in the Community Setting: Does Sample Collection Method Matter?
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 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
- 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
- Recent advances in RNA sample preparation techniques for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva and gargle.Trends in analytical chemistry : TRAC · 2023Review
- Article
- Saliva as a diagnostic specimen for SARS-CoV-2 detection: A scoping review.Oral diseases · 2022Article
- Molecular characterization of SARS-CoV-2 from the saliva of patients in the Republic of Korea in 2020.Health science reports · 2022Article
- Saliva as an alternative specimen to nasopharyngeal swabs for COVID-19 diagnosis: Review.Access microbiology · 2022Review
- The Coronavirus Disease 2019 Spatial Care Path: Home, Community, and Emergency Diagnostic Portals.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Can periodontal pockets and caries lesions act as reservoirs for coronavirus?Molecular oral microbiology · 2022Article
- Evaluation of observed and unobserved self-collection of saline gargle samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in outpatients.Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 2022Article
- Is the Alpha Variant of SARS-CoV-2 Associated with a Higher Viral Load than the Historical Strain in Saliva Samples in Patients with Mild to Moderate Symptoms?Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostics Based on Nucleic Acids Amplification: From Fundamental Concepts to Applications and Beyond.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Review
- Accuracy of saliva and nasopharyngeal sampling for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in community screening: a multicentric cohort study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2021Article
- Evaluation of a saliva molecular point of care for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in ambulatory care.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Feasibility and Diagnostic Accuracy of Saliva-Based SARS-CoV-2 Screening in Educational Settings and Children Aged <12 Years.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data on the performance of saliva specimens for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in ambulatory patients are scarce and inconsistent. We assessed saliva-based specimens for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) in the community setting and compared three different collection methods. This prospective study was conducted in three primary care centers. RT-PCR was performed on paired nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) and saliva samples collected from outpatients with a broad clinical spectrum of illness. To assess differences in collection methods, saliva specimens were obtained in a different way in each of the participating centers: supervised collection (SVC), oropharyngeal washing (OPW), and self-collection (SC). Pairs of NPS and saliva samples from 577 patients (median age, 39 years; 44% men; 42% asymptomatic) were collected and tested, and 120 (20.8%) gave positive results. The overall agreement with NPS results and kappa coefficients (κ) for saliva samples obtained by SVC, OPW, and SC were 95% (κ = 0.85), 93.4% (κ = 0.76), and 93.3% (κ = 0.76), respectively. The sensitivities (95% confidence intervals [95% CI]) of the saliva specimens ranged from 86% (72.6% to 93.7%) for SVC to 66.7% (50.4% to 80%) for SC samples. Sensitivity was higher for samples with lower cycle threshold (
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.