ArticleViruses2022
A Community Study of SARS-CoV-2 Detection by RT-PCR in Saliva: A Reliable and Effective Method.
Article in Viruses, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 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
- SHEAR saliva collection device augments sample properties for improved analytical performance.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2023Article
- Recent advances in RNA sample preparation techniques for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva and gargle.Trends in analytical chemistry : TRAC · 2023Review
- Sensitivity and Specificity of Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection Using Different Sampling Methods: A Clinical Unicentral Study.International journal of environmental research and 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
27 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Efficient, wide-scale testing for SARS-CoV-2 is crucial for monitoring the incidence of the infection in the community. The gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis is the molecular analysis of epithelial secretions from the upper respiratory system captured by nasopharyngeal (NP) or oropharyngeal swabs. Given the ease of collection, saliva has been proposed as a possible substitute to support testing at the population level. Here, we used a novel saliva collection device designed to favour the safe and correct acquisition of the sample, as well as the processivity of the downstream molecular analysis. We tested 1003 nasopharyngeal swabs and paired saliva samples self-collected by individuals recruited at a public drive-through testing facility. An overall moderate concordance (68%) between the two tests was found, with evidence that neither system can diagnose the infection in 100% of the cases. While the two methods performed equally well in symptomatic individuals, their discordance was mainly restricted to samples from convalescent subjects. The saliva test was at least as effective as NP swabs in asymptomatic individuals recruited for contact tracing. Our study describes a testing strategy of self-collected saliva samples, which is reliable for wide-scale COVID-19 screening in the community and is particularly effective for contact tracing.
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.