Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33926069›Full record

ArticleViruses2021

Are Posterior Oropharyngeal Saliva Specimens an Acceptable Alternative to Nasopharyngeal Sampling for the Monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 in Primary-Care Settings?

Shirley Masse, Camille Bonnet, Ana-Maria Vilcu, Hayat Benamar, Morgane Swital, Sylvie van der Werf, Fabrice Carrat, Thomas Hanslik, Thierry Blanchon, Alessandra Falchi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Viruses, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 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. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Shirley MasseUR7310 Bioscope, Université de Corse Pascal Paoli, 20250 Corte, France.ORCID 0000-0002-3659-4512
Camille BonnetSorbonne Université, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, (IPLESP), F-75012 Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-5061-2337
Ana-Maria VilcuSorbonne Université, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, (IPLESP), F-75012 Paris, France.
Hayat BenamarSorbonne Université, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, (IPLESP), F-75012 Paris, France.
Morgane SwitalSorbonne Université, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, (IPLESP), F-75012 Paris, France.
Sylvie van der WerfUnité de Génétique Moléculaire des Virus à ARN, Institut Pasteur, 75015 Paris, France.
Fabrice CarratSorbonne Université, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, (IPLESP), F-75012 Paris, France.
Thomas HanslikSorbonne Université, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, (IPLESP), F-75012 Paris, France.
Thierry BlanchonSorbonne Université, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, (IPLESP), F-75012 Paris, France.
Alessandra FalchiUR7310 Bioscope, Université de Corse Pascal Paoli, 20250 Corte, France.
Inserm · FRUniversité de Corse Pascal Paoli · FRCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FR

Funding

Agence Nationale de la Recherche ANR-20-COVI-000
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe present study was set up to evaluate the efficacy of virological surveillance using posterior oropharyngeal saliva samples to monitor the COVID-19 pandemic in general practice.

methodsPosterior oropharyngeal saliva samples were collected without restriction on timing or alimentation by general practitioners from patients with acute respiratory infection (ARI) seen in consultation. Saliva samples were tested by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction for SARS-CoV-2 and 21 other respiratory pathogens. Results for SARS-CoV-2 in saliva samples were compared to results obtained using a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) collected in a certified medical laboratory before or after the ARI consultation.

resultsOverall, 143 ARI patients were enrolled between 6 June 2020, and 19 January 2021. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 37.0% (n = 53) of saliva samples and in 39.0% (n = 56) of NPS. Both saliva and NPS were positive in 51 patients. Positive and negative results were concordant between saliva samples and NPS in 51 (96.2%) and in 85 (94.4%) patients, respectively, with a Cohen's Kappa coefficient of 0.89 (95% CI 0.82-0.97,

conclusionsFindings suggest that saliva samples could represent an attractive alternative to NPS for surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in patients consulting for an ARI in primary care.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedChildCOVID-19COVID-19 TestingHumansMiddle AgedNasopharynxOropharynxPrimary Health CareReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionRespiratory Tract InfectionsRNA, ViralSalivaSARS-CoV-2RNA, Viralprimary health carerespiratory tract infectionssalivaSARS-CoV-2sentinel surveillance

Identifiers

PMID33926069
PMCPMC8145717
OpenAlexW3159387805

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.