ArticlePloS one2022
SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR testing of pooled saliva samples: A case study of 824 asymptomatic individuals and a questionnaire survey in Japan.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 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
- Feasibility of molecular-based testing strategies for SARS-CoV-2-screening in workplaces: a systematic review and reporting checklist.BMJ public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
From the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the demand for diagnostic and screening tests has exceeded supply. Although the proportion of vaccinated people has increased in wealthier countries, breakthrough infections have occurred amid the emergence of new variants. Pooled-sample COVID-19 testing using saliva has been proposed as an efficient, inexpensive, and non-invasive method to allow larger-scale testing, especially in a screening setting. In this study, we aimed to evaluate pooled RT-qPCR saliva testing and to compare the results with individual tests. Employees of Philips Japan, Ltd. were recruited to participate in COVID-19 screening from October to December 2020. Asymptomatic individuals (n = 824) submitted self-collected saliva samples. Samples were tested for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR in both 10-sample pools and individual tests. We also surveyed participants regarding their thoughts and behaviors after the PCR screening project. Two of the 824 individuals were positive by RT-qPCR. In the pooled testing, one of these two had no measurable Ct value, but showed an amplification trend at the end of the PCR cycle. Both positive individuals developed cold-like symptoms, but neither required hospitalization. Of the 824 participants, 471 responded to our online questionnaire. Overall, while respondents agreed that PCR screening should be performed regularly, the majority were willing to undergo PCR testing only when it was provided for free or at low cost. In conclusion, pooled testing of saliva samples can support frequent large-scale screening that is rapid, efficient, and inexpensive.
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.