Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34259552›Full record

ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2021

Saliva Testing Is Accurate for Early-Stage and Presymptomatic COVID-19.

Abigail J Johnson, Shannon Zhou, Susan L Hoops, Benjamin Hillmann, Matthew Schomaker, Robyn Kincaid, Jerry Daniel, Kenneth Beckman, Daryl M Gohl, Sophia Yohe and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiology spectrum, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Saliva as a Biological Fluid in SARS-CoV-2 Detection.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Saliva as a gold-standard sample for SARS-CoV-2 detection.The Lancet. Respiratory medicine · 2021
    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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Abigail J JohnsonDivision of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesotagrid.17635.36, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5998-4724
Shannon ZhouBioTechnology Institute, College of Biological Sciences, University of Minnesotagrid.17635.36, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Susan L HoopsDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesotagrid.17635.36, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Benjamin HillmannDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesotagrid.17635.36, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Matthew SchomakerM Health Fairview, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Robyn KincaidM Health Fairview, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Jerry DanielUniversity of Minnesota Genomics Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Kenneth BeckmanDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Division of Molecular Pathology and Genomics, University of Minnesotagrid.17635.36, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Daryl M GohlUniversity of Minnesota Genomics Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Sophia YoheDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Division of Molecular Pathology and Genomics, University of Minnesotagrid.17635.36, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Dan Knights *BioTechnology Institute, College of Biological Sciences, University of Minnesotagrid.17635.36, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Andrew C Nelson *Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Division of Molecular Pathology and Genomics, University of Minnesotagrid.17635.36, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4741-0010
University of Minnesota · USFairview Health Services · US

Funding

University of Minnesota Office of the Vice President for Research COVID-19 Rapid Response Grant #06
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although nasopharyngeal samples have been considered the gold standard for COVID-19 testing, variability in viral load across different anatomical sites could cause nasopharyngeal samples to be less sensitive than saliva or nasal samples in certain cases. Self-collected samples have logistical advantages over nasopharyngeal samples, making them amenable to population-scale screening. To evaluate sampling alternatives for population screening, we collected nasopharyngeal, saliva, and nasal samples from two cohorts with varied levels and types of symptoms. In a mixed cohort of 60 symptomatic and asymptomatic participants, we found that saliva had 88% concordance with nasopharyngeal samples when tested in the same testing lab (

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAsymptomatic DiseasesCohort StudiesCOVID-19COVID-19 TestingDiagnostic Tests, RoutineFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNasopharynxSalivaSARS-CoV-2Young AdultCOVID-19salivaSARS-CoV-2symptomstesting

Identifiers

PMID34259552
PMCPMC8552797
OpenAlexW3180409609

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.