Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36170269›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Saliva sample for detection of SARS-CoV-2: A possible alternative for mass testing.

Olumuyiwa Babalola Salu, Iorhen Ephraim Akase, Roosevelt Amaobichukwu Anyanwu, Mercy Remilekun Orenolu, Maryam Abiodun Abdullah, Temie Giwa-Tubosun, Sodiq Abiodun Oloko, Ayomide Michael Oshinjo, Aisha Ajoke Abiola, Kolawole Solomon Oyedeji and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Olumuyiwa Babalola SaluCentre for Human and Zoonotic Virology, Central Research Laboratory, College of Medicine of the University of Lagos, Idi-Araba, Lagos, Nigeria.ORCID 0000-0003-2683-3521
Iorhen Ephraim AkaseDepartment of Medicine, Infectious Disease Unit, Lagos University Teaching, Idi-Araba, Lagos State, Nigeria.
Roosevelt Amaobichukwu AnyanwuCentre for Human and Zoonotic Virology, Central Research Laboratory, College of Medicine of the University of Lagos, Idi-Araba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Mercy Remilekun OrenoluCentre for Human and Zoonotic Virology, Central Research Laboratory, College of Medicine of the University of Lagos, Idi-Araba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Maryam Abiodun AbdullahCentre for Human and Zoonotic Virology, Central Research Laboratory, College of Medicine of the University of Lagos, Idi-Araba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Temie Giwa-TubosunResearch and Development Unit, LifeBank, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Sodiq Abiodun OlokoResearch and Development Unit, LifeBank, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Ayomide Michael OshinjoResearch and Development Unit, LifeBank, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.ORCID 0000-0003-4303-0181
Aisha Ajoke AbiolaResearch and Development Unit, LifeBank, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Kolawole Solomon OyedejiCentre for Human and Zoonotic Virology, Central Research Laboratory, College of Medicine of the University of Lagos, Idi-Araba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Sunday Aremu OmilabuCentre for Human and Zoonotic Virology, Central Research Laboratory, College of Medicine of the University of Lagos, Idi-Araba, Lagos, Nigeria.
University of Lagos · NG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Molecular diagnostic testing has played a critical role in the global response to the novel Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, since its first outbreak in late 2019. At the inception of the COVID-19 pandemic, nasopharyngeal swab sample analysis for COVID-19 diagnosis using the real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) technique was the most widely used. However, due to the high cost and difficulty of sample collection, the number of available sample types for COVID-19 diagnosis is rapidly increasing, as is the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. The use of nasal swabs, saliva, and oral fluids as viable sample options for the effective detection of SARS-CoV-2 has been implemented successfully in different settings since 2020. These alternative sample type provides a plethora of advantages including decreasing the high exposure risk to frontline workers, enhancing the chances of home self-sampling, reducing the cost, and significantly increasing testing capacity. This study sought to ascertain the effectiveness of Saliva samples as an alternative for COVID-19 diagnosis in Nigeria. Demographic data, paired samples of Nasopharyngeal Swab and Drooling Saliva were obtained from 309 consenting individuals aged 8-83 years presenting for COVID-19 testing. All samples were simultaneously assayed for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RdRp, N, and E genes using the GeneFinder™ COVID-19 Plus RT-PCR test kit. Out of 309 participants, only 299 with valid RT-PCR results comprising 159 (53.2%) males and 140 (46.8%) females were analyzed in this study using the R Statistical package. Among the 299 samples analyzed, 39 (13.0%) had SARS-CoV-2 detected in at least one specimen type. Both swabs and saliva were positive in 20 (51.3%) participants. Ten participants (25.6%) had swab positive/saliva-negative results and 9 participants (23.1%) had saliva positive/swab-negative results. The percentage of positive and negative agreement of the saliva samples with the nasopharyngeal swab were 67% and 97% respectively with positive and negative predictive values as 69% and 96% respectively. The findings indicate that drooling saliva samples have good and comparable diagnostic accuracy to the nasopharyngeal swabs with moderate sensitivities and high specificities.

Indexed as

COVID-19SialorrheaCOVID-19 TestingFemaleHumansMaleNasopharynxPandemicsRNA-Dependent RNA PolymeraseSalivaSARS-CoV-2Specimen HandlingRNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase

Identifiers

PMID36170269
PMCPMC9518879
OpenAlexW4297458409

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.