Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34225656›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2021

Comparison of saliva with healthcare workers- and patient-collected swabs in the diagnosis of COVID-19 in a large cohort.

Mitnala Sasikala, Yelamanchili Sadhana, Ketavarapu Vijayasarathy, Anand Gupta, Sarala Kumari Daram, Naveen Chander Reddy Podduturi, Duvvur Nageshwar Reddy

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mitnala SasikalaDepartment of Molecular Biology, Institute of Translational Research, Asian Healthcare Foundation, AIG Hospitals, Survey No 136, Plot No 2/3/4/5, 1, Mindspace Road, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500032, India. aigres.mit@gmail.om.
Yelamanchili SadhanaDepartment of Microbiology, AIG Hospitals, Survey No 136, Plot No 2/3/4/5, 1, Mindspace Road, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500032, India.
Ketavarapu VijayasarathyDepartment of Molecular Biology, Institute of Translational Research, Asian Healthcare Foundation, AIG Hospitals, Survey No 136, Plot No 2/3/4/5, 1, Mindspace Road, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500032, India.
Anand GuptaDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, AIG Hospitals, Survey No 136, Plot No 2/3/4/5, 1, Mindspace Road, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500032, India.
Sarala Kumari DaramDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, AIG Hospitals, Survey No 136, Plot No 2/3/4/5, 1, Mindspace Road, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500032, India.
Naveen Chander Reddy PodduturiDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, AIG Hospitals, Survey No 136, Plot No 2/3/4/5, 1, Mindspace Road, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500032, India.
Duvvur Nageshwar ReddyDepartment of Medical Gastroenterology, AIG Hospitals, Survey No 136, Plot No 2/3/4/5, 1, Mindspace Road, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500032, India.
Asian Institute of Gastroenterology · IN

Funding

Asian Health Care Foundation AHF/023
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA considerable amount of evidence demonstrates the potential of saliva in the diagnosis of COVID-19. Our aim was to determine the sensitivity of saliva versus swabs collected by healthcare workers (HCWs) and patients themselves to assess whether saliva detection can be offered as a cost-effective, risk-free method of SARS-CoV-2 detection.

methodsThis study was conducted in a hospital involving outpatients and hospitalized patients. A total of 3018 outpatients were tested. Of these, 200 qRT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive patients were recruited for further study. In addition, 101 SARS-CoV-2-positive hospitalized patients with symptoms were also enrolled in the study. From outpatients, HCWs collected nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), saliva were obtained. From inpatients, HCWs collected swabs, patient-collected swabs, and saliva were obtained. qRT-PCR was performed to detect SARS-CoV-2 by TAQPATH assay to determine the sensitivity of saliva detection. Sensitivity, specificity and positive/negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) of detecting SARS-CoV-2 were calculated using MedCalc.

resultsOf 3018 outpatients (asymptomatic: 2683, symptomatic: 335) tested by qRT-PCR, 200 were positive (males: 140, females: 60; aged 37.9 ± 12.8 years; (81 asymptomatic, 119 symptomatic). Of these, saliva was positive in 128 (64%); 39 of 81 asymptomatic (47%),89 of 119 symptomatic patients (74.8%). Sensitivity of detection was 60.9% (55.4-66.3%, CI 95%), with a negative predictive value of 36%(32.9-39.2%, CI 95%).Among 101 hospitalized patients (males:65, females: 36; aged 53.48 ± 15.6 years), with HCW collected NPS as comparator, sensitivity of saliva was 56.1% (47.5-64.5, CI 95%), specificity 63.5%(50.4-75.3, CI95%) with PPV of 77.2% and NPV of 39.6% and that of self-swab was 52.3%(44-60.5%, CI95%), specificity 56.6% (42.3-70.2%, CI95%) with PPV 77.2% and NPV29.7%. Comparison of positivity with the onset of symptoms revealed highest detection in saliva on day 3 after onset of symptoms. Additionally, only saliva was positive in 13 (12.8%) hospitalized patients.

conclusionSaliva which is easier to collect than nasopharyngeal swab is a viable alternate to detect SARS-COV-2 in symptomatic patients in the early stage of onset of symptoms. Although saliva is currently not recommended for screening asymptomatic patients, optimization of collection and uniform timing of sampling might improve the sensitivity enabling its use as a screening tool at community level.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCohort StudiesCOVID-19COVID-19 TestingFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedSalivaSARS-CoV-2Specimen HandlingHealthcare workerNasopharyngeal swabSalivaSARS-COV-2

Identifiers

PMID34225656
PMCPMC8256642
OpenAlexW3114046253

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.