ArticleUpsala journal of medical sciences2022
Development of rapid antigen test prototype for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva samples.
Article in Upsala journal of medical sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using IgY for diagnosis of respiratory infections: practical application in COVID-19.Future science OA · 2025Article
- High-throughput microbead assay system with a portable, cost-effective Wi-Fi imaging module, and disposable multi-layered microfluidic cartridges for virus and microparticle detection, and tracking.Biomedical microdevices · 2023Article
- High-throughput microbead assay system with a portable, cost-effective Wi-Fi imaging module, and disposable multi-layered microfluidic cartridges for virus and microparticle detection, and tracking.Research square · 2022Article
- Challenges in the Detection of SARS-CoV-2: Evolution of the Lateral Flow Immunoassay as a Valuable Tool for Viral Diagnosis.Biosensors · 2022Review
- Infection of the oral cavity with SARS-CoV-2 variants: Scope of salivary diagnostics.Frontiers in oral health · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The development of easy-to-perform diagnostic methods is highly important for detecting current coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This pilot study aimed at developing a lateral flow assay (LFA)-based test prototype to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus in saliva samples. Methods: Mice were immunized using the recombinant receptor-binding domain (rRBD) of SARS-CoV-2 virus spike protein. The combinations of the obtained mouse anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD) polyclonal antibodies (PAbs) and several commercial antibodies directed against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were used for enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to select antibody pairs for LFA. The antibody pairs were tested in a LFA format using saliva samples from individuals with early SARS-CoV-2 infection ( Results: Based on ELISA and preliminary LFA results, a combination of mouse anti-RBD PAbs (capture antibody) and rabbit anti-spike PAbs (detection antibody) was chosen for clinical analysis of sample. When compared with rRT-PCR results, LFA exhibited 26.5% sensitivity, 58.1% specificity, 50.0% positive prediction value (PPV), 33.3% negative prediction value (NPV), and 38.7% diagnostic accuracy. However, there was a reasonable improvement in assay specificity (85.7%) and PPV (91.7%) when samples were stratified based on the sampling time. Conclusion: The developed LFA assay demonstrated a potential of SARS-CoV-2 detection in saliva samples. Further technical assay improvements should be made to enhance diagnostic performance followed by a validation study in a larger cohort of both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients in the early stage of 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.