ArticleJournal of infection and public health2022
Validation of RT-qPCR test for SARS-CoV-2 in saliva specimens.
Article in Journal of infection and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Structure-Function Engineering of Hydrogel-MOF Polymer Composites for Regenerative Wound Dressings with Emerging Antiviral Biointerface Functions.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Opportunities and Challenges in Gas Sensor Technologies for Accurate Detection of COVID-19.Biosensors · 2025Review
- Acceptability and Feasibility of Saliva-delivered PCR Coronavirus 2019 Tests for Young Children.Pediatrics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSaliva samples may be an easier, faster, safer, and cost-saving alternative to NPS samples, and can be self-collected by the patient. Whether SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR in saliva is more accurate than in nasopharyngeal swaps (NPS) is uncertain. We evaluated the accuracy of the RT-qPCR in both types of samples, assuming both approaches were imperfect.
methodsWe assessed the limit of detection (LoD) of RT-qPCR in each type of sample. We collected paired NPS and saliva samples and tested them using the Berlin Protocol to detect SARS-CoV-2 envelope protein (E). We used a Bayesian latent class analysis (BLCA) to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of each test, while accounting for their conditional dependence.
resultsThe LoD were 10 copies/mL in saliva and 100 copies/mL in NPS. Paired samples of saliva and NPS were collected in 412 participants. Out of 68 infected cases, 14 were positive only in saliva. RT-qPCR sensitivity ranged from 82.7 % (95 % CrI: 54.8, 94.8) in NPS to 84.5 % (50.9, 96.5) in saliva. Corresponding specificities were 99.1 % (95 % CrI: 95.3, 99.8) and 98.4 %(95 % CrI: 92.8, 99.7).
conclusionsSARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR test in saliva specimens has a similar or better accuracy than RT-qPCR test in NPS. Saliva specimens may be ideal for surveillance in general population, particularly in children, and in healthcare or other personnel in need of serial testing.
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.