ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Clinical Evaluation of Nasopharyngeal, Oropharyngeal, Nasal Swabs, and Saliva for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 by Direct RT-PCR.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extraoral Detection of Biomarkers and Pathogens in Saliva: Comprehensive, Panoramic Review.Biosensors · 2026Review
- Article
- Direct real-time RT-PCR for the detection of dengue virus from patient serum in Lao PDR.PloS one · 2025Article
- Optical lateral flow assays in early diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Analytical sciences : the international journal of the Japan Society for Analytical Chemistry · 2024Review
- Superior effectiveness and acceptability of saliva samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in China.Biosafety and health · 2024Article
- Improving the detection capability and efficiency of SARS-CoV-2 RNA specimens by the specimen turn-around process with multi-department cooperation.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Salivary proteomic analysis in asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection: Innate immunity, taste perception and FABP5 proteins make the difference.Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry · 2022Article
- A Highly Sensitive Immunoassay for Determination of Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 in Capillary Blood Samples.Biomedicines · 2022Article
- IgA-Based Secretory Response in Tears of COVID-19 Patients: A Potential Biomarker of Pro-Inflammatory State in Course of SARS-CoV-2 Infection.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) are the most widely used upper respiratory tract specimens for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 using RT-qPCR. In contrast, nasal swab (NS) and saliva (SS), recently recommended by the WHO, are rarely used, and their test accuracy is limited. The method for direct RT-PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 does not require an RNA extraction and is faster and easier than standard RT-PCR tests with RNA extraction. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of upper respiratory tract samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection using the direct RT-PCR without preliminary heat inactivation. Here we report the application and validation of direct RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 RNA on 165 clinical specimens of NPS/OP, and 36 samples of NS/NPS and 37 saliva samples (for the latter with prior deproteinization). The overall sensitivity estimates were 95.9%, 94.2%, 88.9%, and 94.6% for NPS/OPS/NS/SS samples, respectively, and the specificity was 100% against standard RT-PCR with RNA extraction. Overall, NS and SS testing by direct RT-PCR had sufficient sensitivity to detect SARS-CoV-2. They can be acceptable alternative to NPS/OPS for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections in future.
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.