Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33621263›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Saliva as a testing specimen with or without pooling for SARS-CoV-2 detection by multiplex RT-PCR test.

Qing Sun, Jonathan Li, Hui Ren, Larry Pastor, Yulia Loginova, Roberta Madej, Kristopher Taylor, Joseph K Wong, Zhao Zhang, Aiguo Zhang and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Molecular Diagnostic Testing (December 2023).Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024
    Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Validation of RT-qPCR test for SARS-CoV-2 in saliva specimens.Journal of infection and public health · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Qing SunDiaCarta Inc., Richmond, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2385-1006
Jonathan LiDiaCarta Inc., Richmond, California, United States of America.
Hui RenDiaCarta Inc., Richmond, California, United States of America.
Larry PastorDiaCarta Inc., Richmond, California, United States of America.
Yulia LoginovaDiaCarta Inc., Richmond, California, United States of America.
Roberta MadejDiaCarta Inc., Richmond, California, United States of America.
Kristopher TaylorUniversity of California and VA Healthcare System, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Joseph K WongUniversity of California and VA Healthcare System, San Francisco, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9896-0605
Zhao ZhangDiaCarta Inc., Richmond, California, United States of America.
Aiguo ZhangDiaCarta Inc., Richmond, California, United States of America.
Chuanyi M LuUniversity of California and VA Healthcare System, San Francisco, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5906-2543
Michael Y ShaDiaCarta Inc., Richmond, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4552-6079
San Francisco VA Health Care System · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSensitive and high throughput molecular detection assays are essential during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The vast majority of the SARS-CoV-2 molecular assays use nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) or oropharyngeal swab (OPS) specimens collected from suspected individuals. However, using NPS or OPS as specimens has apparent drawbacks, e.g. the collection procedures for NPS or OPS specimens can be uncomfortable to some people and may cause sneezing and coughing which in turn generate droplets and/or aerosol particles that are of risk to healthcare workers, requiring heavy use of personal protective equipment. There have been recent studies indicating that self-collected saliva specimens can be used for molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 and provides more comfort and ease of use for the patients. Here we report the performance of QuantiVirus™ SARS-CoV-2 test using saliva as the testing specimens with or without pooling.

methodsDevelopment and validation studies were conducted following FDA-EUA and molecular assay validation guidelines. Using SeraCare Accuplex SARS-CoV-2 reference panel, the limit of detection (LOD) and clinical performance studies were performed with the QuantiVirus™ SARS-CoV-2 test. For clinical evaluation, 85 known positive and 90 known negative clinical NPS samples were tested. Additionally, twenty paired NPS and saliva samples collected from recovering COVID-19 patients were tested and the results were further compared to that of the Abbott m2000 SARS-CoV-2 PCR assay. Results of community collected 389 saliva samples for COVID-19 screening by QuantiVirus™ SARS-CoV-2 test were also obtained and analyzed. Additionally, testing of pooled saliva samples was evaluated.

resultsThe LOD for the QuantiVirus™ SARS-CoV-2 test was confirmed to be 100-200 copies/mL. The clinical performance studies using contrived saliva samples indicated that the positive percentage agreement (PPA) of the QuantiVirus™ SARS-CoV-2 test is 100% at 1xLOD, 1.5xLOD and 2.5xLOD. No cross-reactivity was observed for the QuantiVirus™ SARS-CoV-2 test with common respiratory pathogens. Testing of clinical samples showed a positive percentage agreement (PPA) of 100% (95% CI: 94.6% to 100%) and a negative percentage agreement (NPA) of 98.9% (95% CI: 93.1% to 99.9%). QuantiVirus™ SARS CoV-2 test had 80% concordance rate and no significant difference (p = 0.13) between paired saliva and NPS specimens by Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test. Positive test rate was 1.79% for 389 saliva specimens collected from local communities for COVID-19 screening. Preliminary data showed that saliva sample pooling up to 6 samples (1:6 pooling) for SARS-CoV-2 detection is feasible (sensitivity 94.8% and specificity 100%).

conclusionThe studies demonstrated that the QuantiVirus™ SARS-CoV-2 test has a LOD of 200 copies/mL in contrived saliva samples. The clinical performance of saliva-based testing is comparable to that of NPS-based testing. Pooling of saliva specimens for SARS-CoV-2 detection is feasible. Saliva based and high-throughput QuantiVirus™ SARS-CoV-2 test offers a highly desirable testing platform during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultiplex Polymerase Chain ReactionPandemicsReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionSalivaSARS-CoV-2Specimen HandlingYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33621263
PMCPMC7901781
OpenAlexW3129287485

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.