Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35617204›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Development and implementation of a simple and rapid extraction-free saliva SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP workflow for workplace surveillance.

Zhiru Li, Jacqueline L Bruce, Barry Cohen, Caileigh V Cunningham, William E Jack, Katell Kunin, Bradley W Langhorst, Jacob Miller, Reynes A Moncion, Catherine B Poole and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Towards deployable CRISPR-based nucleic acid detection.Progress in biomedical engineering (Bristol, England) · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Zhiru LiNew England Biolabs, Ipswich, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Jacqueline L BruceNew England Biolabs, Ipswich, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Barry CohenNew England Biolabs, Ipswich, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Caileigh V CunninghamNew England Biolabs, Ipswich, Massachusetts, United States of America.
William E JackNew England Biolabs, Ipswich, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Katell KuninNew England Biolabs, Ipswich, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Bradley W LanghorstNew England Biolabs, Ipswich, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Jacob MillerNew England Biolabs, Ipswich, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Reynes A MoncionNew England Biolabs, Ipswich, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Catherine B PooleNew England Biolabs, Ipswich, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Prem K PremsrirutMirimus Inc., Brooklyn, New York, United States of America.
Guoping RenNew England Biolabs, Ipswich, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Richard J RobertsNew England Biolabs, Ipswich, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Nathan A TannerNew England Biolabs, Ipswich, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Yinhua ZhangNew England Biolabs, Ipswich, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Clotilde K S CarlowNew England Biolabs, Ipswich, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4201-8367

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Effective management of the COVID-19 pandemic requires widespread and frequent testing of the population for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Saliva has emerged as an attractive alternative to nasopharyngeal samples for surveillance testing as it does not require specialized personnel or materials for its collection and can be easily provided by the patient. We have developed a simple, fast, and sensitive saliva-based testing workflow that requires minimal sample treatment and equipment. After sample inactivation, RNA is quickly released and stabilized in an optimized buffer, followed by reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and detection of positive samples using a colorimetric and/or fluorescent readout. The workflow was optimized using 1,670 negative samples collected from 172 different individuals over the course of 6 months. Each sample was spiked with 50 copies/μL of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus to monitor the efficiency of viral detection. Using pre-defined clinical samples, the test was determined to be 100% specific and 97% sensitive, with a limit of detection of 39 copies/mL. The method was successfully implemented in a CLIA laboratory setting for workplace surveillance and reporting. From April 2021-February 2022, more than 30,000 self-collected samples from 755 individuals were tested and 85 employees tested positive mainly during December and January, consistent with high infection rates in Massachusetts and nationwide.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2HumansMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesPandemicsRNA, ViralSalivaSensitivity and SpecificityWorkflowWorkplaceRNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID35617204
PMCPMC9135294

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.