ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Assessment of Saliva Specimens' Reliability for COVID-19 Surveillance.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Saliva as a Biological Fluid in SARS-CoV-2 Detection.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- 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
16 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study is to assess saliva as a reliable specimen for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection by real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR), especially in community mass screening programs. The performance analysis considered 1,221 total samples [nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs and corresponding saliva], tested by means of a reference diagnostic real-time RT-PCR assay. Conflicting results were further investigated with a second, more sensitive, reference assay. Analysis of agreement showed a good concordance (95.82%), with a k coefficient value of.74 (
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.