ArticleJournal of virological methods2022
Alternative SARS-CoV-2 detection protocol from self-collected saliva for mass diagnosis and epidemiological studies in low-incoming regions.
Article in Journal of virological methods, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 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
- SARS-CoV-2 Detection and Persistence in a Remote Amazonian Settlement.Journal of tropical medicine · 2025Article
- Saliva-based methods for SARS-CoV-2 testing in low- and middle-income countries.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 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
17 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Until mass vaccination befalls, control of the new betacoronavirus-associated severe acute respiratory syndrome pandemic (SARS-CoV-2) is based on decreasing virus circulation by social distancing and blocking transmission foci after diagnosis. Globally adopted SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic criteria embrace viral RNA detection by quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) on nasopharynx secretions, which requires healthcare facilities and specialized personnel for sample collection. To develop an alternative protocol, hydrophilic cotton as the material and saliva as the source for biological sample collection in qRT-PCR/RT-endpoint-PCR SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic methods prepared with local consumables were evaluated using 99 archived nasopharynx samples previously diagnosed as positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 111 prospective saliva samples pared with nasopharynx samples from patients attending the local reference ABC Medical School diagnostic laboratory. The kappa agreement coefficient between the SARS-CoV-2 qRT-PCR and RT-endpoint-PCR was k = 0.97 (95 % CI 0.92-1.00) and k = 0.90 (95 % CI 0.81-0.99), respectively, on SARS-CoV-2-positive archived samples, with the initial qRT-PCR C
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.