ArticleThe Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD2021
Clinical Validation of a Sensitive Test for Saliva Collected in Healthcare and Community Settings with Pooling Utility for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Mass Surveillance.
Article in The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 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
- Double-Negative Results Matter: A Reevaluation of Sensitivities for Detecting SARS-CoV-2 Infection Using Saliva Versus Nasopharyngeal Swabs.American journal of epidemiology · 2024Pooled it
- The Sensitivity and Costs of Testing for SARS-CoV-2 Infection With Saliva Versus Nasopharyngeal Swabs : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Annals of internal medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Screening for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR: Saliva or nasopharyngeal swab? Rapid review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Reduction of SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load with pre-procedural mouth rinses: a randomised, controlled, clinical trial.British dental journal · 2023Trial
- Assessment of the Effective Sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 Sample Pooling Based on a Large-Scale Screening Experience: Retrospective Analysis.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
- Validation of Saliva as the Clinical Specimen Type for a University-Wide COVID-19 Surveillance Program.Viruses · 2024Article
- Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of an RT-PCR test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2024Article
- Ethno-demographic disparities in humoral responses to the COVID-19 vaccine among healthcare workers.Journal of medical virology · 2023Article
- Salivary SARS-CoV-2 RNA for diagnosis of COVID-19 patients: a systematic revisew and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.The Japanese dental science review · 2023Review
- Mitochondrial complex III activity: from invasive muscle biopsies to patient-friendly buccal swab analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Pooled RNA-extraction-free testing of saliva for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Saliva as a diagnostic specimen for SARS-CoV-2 detection: A scoping review.Oral diseases · 2022Article
- Saliva versus Upper Respiratory Swabs: Equivalent for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 University Screening while Saliva Positivity Is Prolonged After Symptom Onset in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hospitalized Patients.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2022Article
- Article
- Mass screening is a key component to fight against SARS-CoV-2 and return to normalcy.Medical review (2021) · 2022Review
- Clinical validation of a multiplex PCR-based detection assay using saliva or nasopharyngeal samples for SARS-Cov-2, influenza A and B.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Mouth Washing Impaired SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Saliva.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- SalivaSTAT: Direct-PCR and Pooling of Saliva Samples Collected in Healthcare and Community Setting for SARS-CoV-2 Mass Surveillance.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Making a Difference: Adaptation of the Clinical Laboratory in Response to the Rapidly Evolving COVID-19 Pandemic.Academic pathologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The clinical performance of saliva compared with nasopharyngeal swabs (NPSs) has shown conflicting results in healthcare and community settings. In the present study, a total of 429 matched NPS and saliva sample pairs, collected in either healthcare or community setting, were evaluated. Phase-1 (protocol U) tested 240 matched NPS and saliva sample pairs; phase 2 (SalivaAll protocol) tested 189 matched NPS and saliva sample pairs, with an additional sample homogenization step before RNA extraction. A total of 85 saliva samples were evaluated with both protocols. In phase-1, 28.3% (68/240) samples tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from saliva, NPS, or both. The detection rate from saliva was lower compared with that from NPS samples (50.0% versus 89.7%). In phase-2, 50.2% (95/189) samples tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from saliva, NPS, or both. The detection rate from saliva was higher compared with that from NPS samples (97.8% versus 78.9%). Of the 85 saliva samples evaluated with both protocols, the detection rate was 100% for samples tested with SalivaAll, and 36.7% with protocol U. The limit of detection with SalivaAll protocol was 20 to 60 copies/mL. The pooled testing approach demonstrated a 95% positive and 100% negative percentage agreement. This protocol for saliva samples results in higher sensitivity compared with NPS samples and breaks the barrier to using pooled saliva for SARS-CoV-2 testing.
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.