ArticleJournal of medical virology2022
COVID salivary diagnostics: A comparative technical study.
Article in Journal of medical virology, 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.
- Comparison of simple and rapid collection methods for measuring salivary IL-6 and PGEBrazilian journal of veterinary medicine · 2026Article
- Analysis of Biomarker Levels in Nasopharyngeal Swabs, Serum, and Saliva Across Different Health Conditions.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Salivary Biomarkers to Differentiate betweenDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- COVID salivary diagnostics: A comparative technical study.Journal of medical virology · 2022Article
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, molecular diagnostics of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have taken center stage in the detection of infected individuals for isolation purposes but also in the mass surveillance as a preventive strategy to contain the virus spread. While nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) have remained the golden standard substrate, salivary diagnostic for SARS-CoV-2 has been proposed as an alternative and noninvasive measure in vulnerable individuals. Nevertheless, there is a widespread assumption that salivary reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) does not match the quality of testing using NPS and particular care should be taken in respect to food or beverage intake, when sampling saliva. Our study indicates that without any precaution in the selection of 190 patients, nor restriction over the time window of sampling, there is 99% match in the COVID-19 positivity between NPS and saliva when using RT-PCR, with a reported Delta in thermal cycles (Cts) values for the viral genes Envelope (E) and Open reading frame 1ab (Orf1ab) between 0 and 2, a 98.7% sensitivity and 100% specificity. This high accuracy is maintained in pooling configurations that can be used for mass-testing purposes in professional and educational settings. The further advantage to using crude saliva as compared to NPS or mouthwash is that direct methods yield robust results. Overall, our study validates and promotes the use of salivary diagnostic for COVID-19 eliminating the need of a medical practitioner for the sampling, resolving the unpleasantness of the NPS intervention and empowering the patient to do self-testing in times of need.
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.