ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022
Saliva Sampling for Prospective SARS-CoV-2 Screening of Healthcare Professionals.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of water gargle samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection using Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 assay.Journal of medical virology · 2022Article
- Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to analyze the feasibility and acceptance of a non-invasive, daily and proactive screening program for SARS-CoV-2 infection employing serial saliva testing, in combination with a digital questionnaire among healthcare providers (HCPs) in a multi-professional setting.
designThis was a prospective cohort study involving HCPs from different units at a single tertiary care center, over a pilot phase of 4 weeks during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic from April 18th to June 6th, 2020.
settingPediatric tertiary patient care units, Comprehensive Center for Pediatrics, Medical University of Vienna. SUBJECTS: HCPs from different units, including physicians, nurses, midwives, and administrative staff (with patient contact) were considered eligible for the study. Study participants were working in different settings in our center at varying levels of risk exposure.
interventionsSaliva collection from mouth gargle and electronic symptom and exposure monitoring (eSEM) was performed by participants at the onset of each regular clinical shift (day or night shift), using an anonymous ID for matching the results. MEASUREMENTS: RT-PCR of all saliva samples, eSEM, as well as feasibility and acceptance thereof.
resultsTwo hundred and seventy-five volunteers collected 1,865 saliva samples and responded 1,378 times in the eSEM during a 4-week period. 1,331 (96.7%) responses were that the testing was feasible and acceptable. The most common severe symptom during the 4-week period mentioned by HCPs was headache, reported 54 times (3.9%). Two SARS-CoV-2 positive samples-one of them being associated with symptoms-were identified. The acceptance rate among HCPs was 96.6%.
conclusionSerial saliva screening was a well-accepted and feasible method for monitoring SARS-CoV-2 infectious state in health care professionals. Combination of regular SARS-CoV-2 tests with sequential saliva collection and storage could potentially represent a highly efficient strategy to identify and trace virus positive staff for employee and patient safety.
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.