ArticlePloS one2022
Evaluation of a fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)-based method for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva.
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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Molecular Approach for Detecting Bacteria and Fungi in Healthcare Environment Aerosols: A Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Pooled it
- Biomarkers of pulmonary fibrosis in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and saliva. Study methods and pathophysiological significance.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Use of high-resolution fluorescence in situ hybridization for fast and robust detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNAs.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of a non-invasive fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)-based method on saliva for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 is evaluated in a proof-of-concept study and thereafter utilized in an outpatient setting with the Biotrack-MED® analyzer. For a proof-of-concept study, saliva samples were obtained from 28 persons with mild or moderate COVID-19-related symptoms who were tested RT-PCR positive or negative for SARS-CoV-2. In an outpatient setting, 972 individual saliva samples were utilized. All saliva samples were FISHed with a Cy3-labeled SARS-CoV-2-specific DNA probe and were analyzed manually by fluorescence microscopy (proof-of-concept) or with the SARS-CoV-2 application of the Biotrack-MED® analyzer, a semi-autonomous multi-sample filter cytometer. The proof-of-concept study showed a sensitivity of 96.0% and a specificity of 98.5% and is therefore comparable to the RT-PCR analysis of nasopharyngeal swabs. The outpatient setting showed a sensitivity of 90.9% and a specificity of 94.5% and seems therefore a valid assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in individuals that are healthy, mild or moderate symptomatic. In conclusion, the method evaluated in this study, the FISH-based SARS-CoV-2 application of the Biotrack-MED® analyzer, is a sensitive and reliable assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in the general population.
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.