ArticleThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene2022
Evaluating Saliva Sampling with Reverse Transcription Loop-mediated Isothermal Amplification to Improve Access to SARS-CoV-2 Diagnosis in Low-Resource Settings.
Article in The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Standard diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 by nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) requires a sophisticated laboratory, skilled staff, and expensive reagents that are difficult to establish and maintain in isolated, low-resource settings. In the remote setting of tropical Sumba Island, eastern Indonesia, we evaluated alternative sampling with fresh saliva (FS) and testing with colorimetric loop-medicated isothermal amplification (LAMP). Between August 2020 and May 2021, we enrolled 159 patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, of whom 75 (47%) had a positive PCR on NPS (median cycle threshold [Ct] value: 27.6, interquartile range: 12.5-37.6). PCR on FS had a sensitivity of 72.5% (50/69, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 60.4-82.5) and a specificity of 85.7% (66/77, 95% CI: 75.9-92.6), and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values of 82.0% (95% CI: 0.0-90.6) and 77.6% (95% CI: 67.3-86.0), respectively. LAMP on NPS had a sensitivity of 68.0% (51/75, 95% CI: 56.2-78.3) and a specificity of 70.8% (63/84, 95% CI: 58.9-81.0), with PPV 70.8% (95% CI: 58.9-81.0) and NPV 72.4% (95% CI: 61.8-81.5%). LAMP on FS had a sensitivity of 62.3% (43/69, 95% CI: 49.8-73.7%) and a specificity of 72.7% (56/77, 95% CI: 61.4-82.3%), with PPV 67.2% (95% CI: 54.3-78.4) and NPV 68.3% (95% CI: 57.1-78.1%). LAMP sensitivity was higher for NPS and FS specimens with high viral loads (87.1% and 75.0% for Ct value < 26, respectively). Dried saliva on filter paper was stable for 4 days at room temperature. LAMP on either NPS or FS could offer an accessible alternative for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis in low-resource settings, with potential for optimizing sample collection and processing, and selection of gene targets.
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.