ArticleScientific reports2022
Saliva as alternative to naso-oropharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-qPCR: a multicenter cross-sectional diagnostic validation study.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Universal Identification of Pathogenic Viruses by Liquid Chromatography Coupled with Tandem Mass Spectrometry Proteotyping.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2024Article
- Superior effectiveness and acceptability of saliva samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in China.Biosafety and health · 2024Article
- SalivaDirect: an alternative to a conventional RNA extraction protocol for molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a clinical setting.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Recent advances in RNA sample preparation techniques for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva and gargle.Trends in analytical chemistry : TRAC · 2023Review
- A Highly Sensitive Immunoassay for Determination of Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 in Capillary Blood Samples.Biomedicines · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Saliva has been demonstrated as feasible alternative to naso-oropharyngeal swab (NOS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection through reverse transcription quantitative/real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). This study compared the diagnostic agreement of conventional NOS, saliva with RNA extraction (SE) and saliva without RNA extraction (SalivaDirect) processing for RT-qPCR in identifying SARS-CoV-2. All techniques were also compared, as separate index tests, to a composite reference standard (CRS) where positive and negative results were defined as SARS-CoV-2 detection in either one or no sample, respectively. Of 517 paired samples, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 150 (29.01%) NOS and 151 (29.21%) saliva specimens. The saliva-based tests were noted to have a sensitivity, specificity and accuracy (95% confidence interval) of 92.67% (87.26%, 96.28%), 97.55% (95.40%, 98.87%) and 96.13% (94.09%, 97.62%), respectively, for SE RT-qPCR and 91.33% (85.64%, 95.30%), 98.91% (97.23%, 99.70%) and 96.71% (94.79%, 98.07%), respectively, for SalivaDirect RT-qPCR compared to NOS RT-qPCR. Compared to CRS, all platforms demonstrated statistically similar diagnostic performance. These findings suggest that both conventional and streamlined saliva RT-qPCR are at least non-inferior to conventional NOS RT-qPCR in detecting SARS-CoV-2.
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.