Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36129278›Full record

ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2022

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Detection from Saliva Sampling and Oropharyngeal Swab.

Mia de Laurent Clemmensen, Kamilla Kolding Bendixen, Katharina Flugt, Pernille Pilgaard, Ulf Bech Christensen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiology spectrum, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Mia de Laurent ClemmensenPentaBase A/S, Odense, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-9140-0752
Kamilla Kolding BendixenPentaBase A/S, Odense, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-6586-6724
Katharina FlugtPentaBase A/S, Odense, Denmark.
Pernille PilgaardPentaBase A/S, Odense, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-7566-6649
Ulf Bech ChristensenPentaBase A/S, Odense, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-4777-1972

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We examined the detection rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) of side-by-side saliva and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) samples from 639 symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects, of which 47 subjects were found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the OPS or saliva sample or both. It was found that the detection rate (93.6% for both OPS and saliva) as well as the sensitivity and specificity were comparable between the two sampling methods in this cohort. The sensitivity was 0.932 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.818 to 0.977) and the specificity was 0.995 (95% CI, 0.985 to 0.998), both for saliva when OPS sampling was used as the reference and for OPS when saliva was used as the reference. Furthermore, the Cohen's kappa value was 0.926 (95% CI, 0.868 to 0.985), indicating strong agreement between the two sampling methods. In addition, the viral RNA stability in pure saliva and saliva mixed with preservation buffers was examined following storage at room temperature and at 4°C. It was found that pure saliva kept the viral RNA stable for 9 days at both temperatures and that the type of preservation buffer can either enhance or reduce the stability of the RNA. We conclude that self-administered saliva sampling is an attractive alternative to oropharyngeal swabbing for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and it might be useful in large-scale testing.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2Communicable Disease ControlCOVID-19 TestingHumansPandemicsRNA, ViralSalivaSpecimen HandlingRNA, ViralCOVID-19oropharyngeal swabRNA stabilityRT-qPCRsalivaSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID36129278
PMCPMC9604035

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.