Trial reportEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2021
The role of mouthwash sampling in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.
Trial report in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sensitivity of gargle samples compared to swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection with nucleic acid amplification testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Virology journal · 2026Pooled it
- Performance of saline and water gargling for SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase PCR testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2022Pooled it
- Efficacy of three antimicrobial mouthwashes in reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the saliva of hospitalized patients: a randomized controlled pilot study.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Effect of oral antiseptics in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infectivity: evidence from a randomized double-blind clinical trial.Emerging microbes & infections · 2022Trial
- Preprocedural Viral Load Effects of Oral Antiseptics on SARS-CoV-2 in Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Extraction-free clinical detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus from saline gargle samples using Hamilton STARlet liquid handler.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Evaluating Saliva Sampling with Reverse Transcription Loop-mediated Isothermal Amplification to Improve Access to SARS-CoV-2 Diagnosis in Low-Resource Settings.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2022Article
- Direct comparison of Altona-SARS-CoV-2 dual target RT-qPCR Assay with commercial LAMP Assay using throat washes in health care staff testing.Journal of clinical virology plus · 2022Article
- Surveillance Web System and Mouthwash-Saliva qPCR for Labor Ambulatory SARS-CoV-2 Detection and Prevention.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe current practice of COVID-19 diagnosis worldwide is the use of oro-nasopharyngeal (ONP) swabs. Our study aim was to explore mouthwash (MW) as an alternative diagnostic method, in light of the disadvantages of ONP swabs.
methodsCOVID-19 outpatients molecular-confirmed by ONP swab were repeatedly examined with ONP swab and MW with normal saline (0.9%). Other types of fluids were compared to normal saline. The Cq values obtained with each method were compared.
resultsAmong 137 pairs of ONP swabs and MW samples, 84.6% (116/137) of ONP swabs were positive by at least one of the genes (N, E, R). However MW detected 70.8% (97/137) of samples as positive, which means 83.6% (97/116) out of positive ONP swabs, missing mainly Cq value > 30. In both methods, the N gene was the most sensitive one. Therefore, MW samples targeting N gene, which was positive in 95/137 (69.3%), are comparable to ONP swabs targeting E and R genes which gave equal results-95/137 (69.3%) and 90/137 (65.7%), respectively. Comparing saline MW to distilled water gave equal results, while commercial mouth-rinsing solutions were less sensitive.
conclusionsMW with normal saline, especially when tested by N gene, can effectively detect COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, this method was not inferior when compared to R and E genes of ONP swabs, which are common targets in many laboratories around the world.
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.