ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2022
Clinical Performance of Direct RT-PCR Testing of Raw Saliva for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Individuals.
Article in Microbiology spectrum, 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of the Effective Sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 Sample Pooling Based on a Large-Scale Screening Experience: Retrospective Analysis.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
- Article
- Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Nasopharyngeal Swab and Saliva Samples from Patients Infected with Omicron Variant.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
18 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
RT-PCR tests based on RNA extraction from nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) are promoted as the "gold standard" for SARS-CoV-2 detection. However, the use of saliva samples offers noninvasive self-collection more suitable for high-throughput testing. This study evaluated performance of the TaqPath COVID-19 Fast PCR Combo kit 2.0 assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in raw saliva relative to a lab-developed direct RT-PCR test (SalivaDirect-based PCR, SDB-PCR) and an RT-PCR test based on RNA extraction from NPS. Saliva and NPS samples were collected from symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals (N = 615). Saliva samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using the TaqPath COVID-19 Fast PCR Combo kit 2.0 and the SDB-PCR, while NPS samples were tested by RT-PCR in RNA extracts according to the Irish national testing system. TaqPath COVID-19 Fast PCR Combo kit 2.0 detected SARS-CoV-2 in 52 saliva samples, of which 51 were also positive with the SDB-PCR. Compared to the NPS "gold standard" biospecimen method, 49 samples displayed concordant results, while three samples (35<Ct<37) were positive on raw saliva. Among the negative samples, 10 discordant cases were found with the TaqPath COVID-19 Fast PCR Combo kit 2.0 (PPA-83.05%; NPA-99.44%), compared to the RNA extraction-based NPS method, performing similarly to the SDB-PCR (PPA-84.75%; NPA-99.63%). The direct RT-PCR testing of saliva samples shows high concordance with the NPS extraction-based method for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and therefore provides a cost-effective and highly scalable system for high-throughput COVID-19 rapid-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.