ArticleDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease2021
Automated molecular testing of saliva for SARS-CoV-2 detection.
Article in Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 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
- Taking a step back from testing: Preanalytical considerations in molecular infectious disease diagnostics.Clinical biochemistry · 2023Review
- Assessment of Saliva Specimens' Reliability for COVID-19 Surveillance.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Saliva as a testing specimen with or without pooling for SARS-CoV-2 detection by multiplex RT-PCR test.PloS one · 2021Article
- Comparative performance and cycle threshold values of 10 nucleic acid amplification tests for SARS-CoV-2 on clinical samples.PloS one · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With surging global demand for SARS-CoV-2 testing capacity, laboratories seek automated, high-throughput molecular solutions, particularly for specimens not requiring specialized collection devices or viral transport media. Saliva specimens submitted from patients under investigation for COVID-19 from March to July 2020 were processed in the laboratory with sterile phosphate-buffered saline in a 1:2 dilution and tested using manual extraction and a commercial assay for detection of the SARS-CoV-2 E gene (LightMix®) in comparison to the Roche cobas® SARS-CoV-2 Test on the cobas® 6800 instrument. 34.4% (22/64) of saliva samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Positive and negative concordance between the LightMix® and cobas® assays were 100%. The overall invalid rate for saliva on the cobas® 6800 (1/128, 0.78%) was similar to the baseline invalid rate observed for nasopharyngeal swabs/viral transport media. Saliva is a feasible specimen type for SARS-CoV-2 testing on the cobas® 6800 platform, with potential to improve turnaround time and enhance testing capacity.
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.