ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2022
Diagnostic Performance Assessment of Saliva RT-PCR and Nasopharyngeal Antigen for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Peru.
Article in Microbiology spectrum, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recent advances in RNA sample preparation techniques for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva and gargle.Trends in analytical chemistry : TRAC · 2023Review
- Laboratory Evaluation Links Some False-Positive COVID-19 Antigen Test Results Observed in a Field Study to a Specific Lot of Test Strips.Open forum infectious diseases · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Widely available and reliable testing for SARS-CoV-2 is essential for the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We estimated the diagnostic performance of reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) performed on saliva and the SD Biosensor STANDARD Q antigen test performed on nasopharyngeal swab compared to the reference standard, nasopharyngeal swab (NP) RT-PCR. We enrolled participants living and/or seeking care in health facilities in North Lima, Peru from November 2020 to January 2021. Consenting participants underwent same-day RT-PCR on both saliva and nasopharyngeal swab specimens, antigen testing on a nasopharyngeal swab specimen, pulse oximetry, and standardized symptom assessment. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values for the nasopharyngeal antigen and saliva RT-PCR compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR. Of 896 participants analyzed, 567 (63.3%) had acute signs/symptoms of COVID-19. The overall sensitivity and specificity of saliva RT-PCR were 85.8% and 98.1%, respectively. Among participants with and without acute signs/symptoms of COVID-19, saliva sensitivity was 87.3% and 37.5%, respectively. Saliva sensitivity was 97.4% and 56.0% among participants with cycle threshold (
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.