ArticlePloS one2022
Population wide testing pooling strategy for SARS-CoV-2 detection using saliva.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 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
- TAM pathway proteins as novel salivary biomarkers for periodontitis.Journal of periodontology · 2026Observational
- Unraveling the Extra Virgin Olive Oil Effect on Inflammation and on Gut and Saliva Microbiota.Biomolecules · 2025Article
- Comparison of RT-PCR cycle threshold values between individual and pooled SARS-CoV-2 infected nasopharyngeal swab specimens.Narra J · 2024Article
- Exploring the inflammatory profile of homelessness population: a comprehensive analysis of individuals in two temporary shelters in Lisbon.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Pooling of six respiratory samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: A validation and cost study in a cohort in Lima, Peru.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Pooled RNA-extraction-free testing of saliva for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Peri-implant diseases diagnosis, prognosis and dental implant monitoring: a narrative review of novel strategies and clinical impact.BMC oral health · 2023Review
- A novel strategy to avoid sensitivity loss in pooled testing for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance: validation using nasopharyngeal swab and saliva samples.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Validation of RT-qPCR test for SARS-CoV-2 in saliva specimens.Journal of infection and public health · 2022Article
- COVID-19 Salivary Protein Profile: Unravelling Molecular Aspects of SARS-CoV-2 Infection.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- COVID salivary diagnostics: A comparative technical study.Journal of medical virology · 2022Article
- Article
- An improvement of current hypercube pooling PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection.Frontiers in 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
18 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has forced frequent testing of populations. It is necessary to identify the most cost-effective strategies for the detection of COVID-19 outbreaks. Nasopharyngeal samples have been used for SARS-CoV-2 detection but require a healthcare professional to collect the sample and cause discomfort and pain to the individual. Saliva has been suggested as an appropriate fluid for the diagnosis of COVID-19. We have investigated the possibility of using pools of saliva samples to detect SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Two hundred and seventy-nine saliva samples were analyzed through RT-PCR of Envelope, Nucleocapsid and Open Reading Frame 1ab genes. Reproducibility assays showed an almost perfect agreement as well as high sensitivity (96.6%), specificity (96.8%), positive predicted value (96.6%), and negative predicted value (96.8%). The average Cycle Threshold of the genes detected was 29.7. No significant differences (p > 0.05) were detected when comparing the cycle threshold average of two consecutive reactions on the same positive saliva samples. Saliva samples have a higher median viral load (32.6) than in nasopharyngeal samples (28.9), although no significant differences were detected (p > 0.05). Saliva-pool samples allowed effective SARS-CoV-2 screening, with a higher sensibility (96.9%) on 10-sample pools than in 20-sample pools (87.5%). Regardless of pools size specificity was high (99.9%) and an almost perfect agreement was observed. Our strategy was successfully applied in population wide testing of more than 2000 individuals, showing that it is possible to use pooled saliva as diagnostic fluid for SARS-CoV-2 infection.
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.