SynthesisSaudi medical journal2022
The diagnostic accuracy of RT-PCR from self-collected saliva versus nasopharyngeal sampling: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Saudi medical journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
- Review
- Influenza A, like Omicron SARS-CoV-2, Is Similarly Detected in Saliva or Nasopharyngeal Samples via RT-qPCR.Viruses · 2023Article
- Salivary SARS-CoV-2 RNA for diagnosis of COVID-19 patients: a systematic revisew and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.The Japanese dental science review · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the diagnostic utility of self-collected saliva in coronavirus desease-19 (COVID-19) screening procedures.
methodsA total of 6 databases were reviewed from their inception until August 2021. Sensitivity and specificity were measured by extracting items (true-positive, true-negative, false-positive and false-negative) from each paper. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy based on Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, version 2.
resultsA total of 41 studies were included in the final analysis. The diagnostic odds ratio (OR) of self-collected saliva was 196.2022 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 117.8833-326.5546). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.955. For detecting COVID-19, self-collected saliva had a moderate sensitivity of 0.8476 [0.8045-0.8826] and positive predictive value of 0.9404 [0.9122-0.9599] but high specificity of 0.9817 [0.9707-0.9887] and negative predictive value of 0.9467 [0.9130-0.9678]. In a subgroup analysis, the diagnostic accuracy of self-collected saliva tended to be higher for symptomatic (vs. asymptomatic) examinees.
conclusionAlthough naso/oropharyngeal swab tests are the most accurate and important diagnostic tools, the saliva-based testing method can be used as a suitable alternative test, with the advantages of increased patient convenience, efficient testing, and the need for fewer medical staff and resources. In particular, simple collecting method such as drooling or spitting without coughing would be effective in evaluating the symptomatic patients.PROSPERO no.: CRD42021279287.
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.