SynthesisPloS one2021
Screening for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR: Saliva or nasopharyngeal swab? Rapid review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 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
31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Is saliva collected passively without forceful coughing sensitive to detect SARS-CoV-2 in ambulatory cases? A systematic review.Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology · 2022Pooled it
- Comparison of Four Active SARS-CoV-2 Surveillance Strategies in Representative Population Sample Points: Two-Factor Factorial Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2023Trial
- Patients With Berardinelli-Seip and Silver-Russell Syndromes Hospitalized due to Coronavirus Disease (COVID)-19 in Brazil: A Four-Year Case Report Profile.Case reports in infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Oral SARS-CoV-2 host responses predict the early COVID-19 disease course.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Analyzing factors affecting positivity in drive-through COVID-19 testing: a cross-sectional study.Virology journal · 2024Article
- Comparative Performance of COVID-19 Test Methods in Healthcare Workers during the Omicron Wave.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Rapid Nucleic Acid Diagnostic Technology for Pandemic Diseases.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Screening for High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Reveals HPV52 and HPV58 among Pediatric and Adult Patient Saliva Samples.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- The Performance of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) Virus Using the Colorimetric Reverse-Transcription Loop Mediated Isothermal Amplification (RT-LAMP) Method in Saliva Specimens of Suspected COVID-19 Patients.International journal of general medicine · 2024Article
- Influenza A, like Omicron SARS-CoV-2, Is Similarly Detected in Saliva or Nasopharyngeal Samples via RT-qPCR.Viruses · 2023Article
- Recent advances in RNA sample preparation techniques for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva and gargle.Trends in analytical chemistry : TRAC · 2023Review
- COVID-19 and Tuberculosis: Unveiling the Dual Threat and Shared Solutions Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
- Accuracy of saliva for SARS-CoV-2 detection in outpatients and their household contacts during the circulation of the Omicron variant of concern.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Scalable RT-LAMP-based SARS-CoV-2 testing for infection surveillance with applications in pandemic preparedness.EMBO reports · 2023Article
- Impact of DHCWs' Safety Perception on Vaccine Acceptance and Adoption of Risk Mitigation Strategies.JDR clinical and translational research · 2023Article
- SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR Ct values in saliva and nasopharyngeal swab samples for disease severity prediction.Journal of oral microbiology · 2023Article
- Comparing SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load in Human Saliva to Oropharyngeal Swabs, Nasopharyngeal Swabs, and Sputum: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2023Review
- Quantitative analysis of different respiratory specimens on two automated test systems for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA.Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 2023Article
- Omicron Wave SARS-CoV-2 Diagnosis: Evaluation of Saliva, Anterior Nasal, and Nasopharyngeal Swab Samples.Microbiology spectrum · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiagnosis of COVID-19 in symptomatic patients and screening of populations for SARS-CoV-2 infection require access to straightforward, low-cost and high-throughput testing. The recommended nasopharyngeal swab tests are limited by the need of trained professionals and specific consumables and this procedure is poorly accepted as a screening method In contrast, saliva sampling can be self-administered.
methodsIn order to compare saliva and nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, we designed a meta-analysis searching in PubMed up to December 29th, 2020 with the key words "(SARS-CoV-2 OR COVID-19 OR COVID19) AND (salivary OR saliva OR oral fluid)) NOT (review[Publication Type]) NOT (PrePrint[Publication Type])" applying the following criteria: records published in peer reviewed scientific journals, in English, with at least 15 nasopharyngeal/orapharyngeal swabs and saliva paired samples tested by RT-PCR, studies with available raw data including numbers of positive and negative tests with the two sampling methods. For all studies, concordance and sensitivity were calculated and then pooled in a random-effects model.
findingsA total of 377 studies were retrieved, of which 50 were eligible, reporting on 16,473 pairs of nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal and saliva samples. Meta-analysis showed high concordance, 92.5% (95%CI: 89.5-94.7), across studies and pooled sensitivities of 86.5% (95%CI: 83.4-89.1) and 92.0% (95%CI: 89.1-94.2) from saliva and nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs respectively. Heterogeneity across studies was 72.0% for saliva and 85.0% for nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs.
interpretationOur meta-analysis strongly suggests that saliva could be used for frequent testing of COVID-19 patients and "en masse" screening of populations.
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.