ArticleIndian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India2022
Conventional Naso-Oropharyngeal Sampling Versus Self-Collected Saliva Samples in COVID-19 Testing.
Article in Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 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
- The diagnostic accuracy of RT-PCR from self-collected saliva versus nasopharyngeal sampling: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Saudi medical journal · 2022Pooled it
- Saliva as a diagnostic specimen for SARS-CoV-2 detection: A scoping review.Oral diseases · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Comparing the diagnostic utility of salivary specimen samples with conventional nasopharynx-oropharynx (NP-OP) specimen samples to identify COVID-19 cases by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Eighty COVID-19 suspects enrolled for the paired sampling. In addition to conventional sampling, suspects were asked to follow stepwise pictorial instructions for self salivary sampling. Separate nylon swab stick was used for taking the samples from NP-OP and the floor of the oral cavity. The data were analyzed for sensitivity, specificity, concordance of COVID-19 status, and limits of agreement for cycle threshold (ct) values by either method. Forty-nine suspects (61.3%) were males, the mean age was 36.4 years. To determine the diagnostic test performance of the saliva, RT-PCR results of the NP-OP samples were used as the reference standard. Out of 80 suspects, 41 showed positivity by NP-OP swabs and 12 by salivary samples. The salivary samples showed significantly lesser positivity rate. The sensitivity and specificity of salivary samples against conventional reference standards are 24.4%, 94.9% respectively. Concordance of these two types of samples in terms of agreement kappa statistics is estimated as K = 0.252 (0.09-0.42). Median ct values of both the E and ORF1ab gene for the salivary samples were higher compared to the corresponding NP-OP sample. This study showed lesser sensitivity with salivary swab samples as compared to conventional NP-OP sampling for RT-PCR, COVID-19 detection. Hence, we are of opinion that more studies are required to establish the utility of salivary sampling in COVID-19 diagnostics.
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.