ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Self-Collection of Saliva Specimens as a Suitable Alternative to Nasopharyngeal Swabs for the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in different types of clinical specimens among suspected COVID-19 patients in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Virusdisease · 2024Article
- The Diagnostic Performance of Various Clinical Specimens for the Detection of COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis of RT-PCR Studies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Saliva as a diagnostic specimen for SARS-CoV-2 detection: A scoping review.Oral diseases · 2022Article
- [Main changes in the «COVID-19 in paediatrics» clinical practice guideline].Anales de pediatria (Barcelona, Spain : 2003) · 2022Article
- Main changes in the "COVID-19 in paediatrics" clinical practice guideline.Anales de pediatria · 2022Article
- Saliva as an alternative specimen to nasopharyngeal swabs for COVID-19 diagnosis: Review.Access microbiology · 2022Review
- A case of primary COVID-19 pneumonia: plausible airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2.European journal of medical research · 2022Article
- Self-Collected Samples to Detect SARS-CoV-2: Direct Comparison of Saliva, Tongue Swab, Nasal Swab, Chewed Cotton Pads and Gargle Lavage.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Mouth Washing Impaired SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Saliva.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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
A nasopharyngeal swab is a sample used for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Saliva is a sample easier to obtain and the risk of contagion for the professional is lower. This study aimed to evaluate the utility of saliva for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This prospective study involved 674 patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. Paired nasopharyngeal and saliva samples were processed by RT-qPCR. Sensitivity, specificity, and kappa coefficient were used to evaluate the results from both samples. We considered the influence of age, symptoms, chronic conditions, and sample processing with lysis buffer. Of the 674 patients, 636 (94.4%) had valid results from both samples. The virus detection in saliva compared to a nasopharyngeal sample (gold standard) was 51.9% (95% CI: 46.3%-57.4%) and increased to 91.6% (95% CI: 86.7%-96.5%) when the cycle threshold (Ct) was ≤ 30. The specificity of the saliva sample was 99.1% (95% CI: 97.0%-99.8%). The concordance between samples was 75% (κ = 0.50; 95% CI: 0.45-0.56). The Ct values were significantly higher in saliva. In conclusion, saliva sample utility is limited for clinical diagnosis, but could be a useful alternative for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in massive screening studies, when the availability of trained professionals for sampling or personal protection equipment is limited.
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.