ArticleERJ open research2021
Salivary detection of COVID-19: clinical performance of oral sponge sampling for SARS-CoV-2 testing.
Article in ERJ open research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 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
- Diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive SARS-CoV-2 screening tests: a national prospective analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Trial
- Predicting the hub interactome of COVID-19 and oral squamous cell carcinoma: uncovering ALDH-mediated Wnt/β-catenin pathway activation via salivary inflammatory proteins.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluation of saliva and nasopharyngeal swab sampling for genomic detection of SARS-CoV-2 in children accessing a pediatric emergency department during the second pandemic wave.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- An evaluation index system for regional mobile SARS-CoV-2 virus nucleic acid testing capacity in China: a modified Delphi consensus study.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Sample Pooling for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Nasopharyngeal Swab and Saliva Samples with the Idylla SARS-CoV-2 Test.Microbiology spectrum · 2021Article
- Setting-Up a Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Genome Assessment by Next-Generation Sequencing in an Academic Hospital Center (LPCE, Louis Pasteur Hospital, Nice, France).Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe current diagnostic standard for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing with nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs. The invasiveness and need for trained personnel make the NP technique unsuited for repeated community-based mass screening. We developed a technique to collect saliva in a simple and easy way with the sponges that are usually used for tamponade of epistaxis. This study was carried out to validate the clinical performance of oral sponge (OS) sampling for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing.
methodsOver a period of 22 weeks, we collected prospectively 409 paired NP and OS samples from consecutive subjects presenting to a public community-based free screening centre. Subjects were referred by their attending physician because of recent COVID-19 symptoms (n = 147) or by the contact tracing staff of the French public health insurance because they were considered as close contacts of a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 case (n = 262).
resultsIn symptomatic subjects, RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 testing with OS showed a 96.5% (95% CI: 89.6-94.8) concordance with NP testing, and a 93.2% (95% CI: 89.1-97.3) sensitivity when using the IdyllaTM platform and a sensitivity of 76.3% (95% CI: 69.4-83.2) on the Synlab Barla laboratory platform. In close contacts the NP-OS concordance (93.8%, 95% CI: 90.9-96.7) and OS sensitivity (71.9%, 95% CI: 66.5-77.3) were slightly lower.
conclusionThese results strongly suggest that OS testing is a straightforward, low-cost and high-throughput sampling method that can be used for frequent RT-PCR testing of COVID-19 patients and mass screening of populations.
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.