ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
SARS-CoV-2 Detection via RT-PCR in Matched Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Samples Reveals High Concordance in Different Commercial Assays.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of saliva tests for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis during the pandemic in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Dry Swabs and Dried Saliva as Alternative Samples for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Remote Areas in Lao PDR.Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Observational
- Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSelf-collected saliva samples can increase the diagnostic efficiency and benefit healthcare workers, patient care, and infection control. This study evaluated the performance of self-collected saliva samples compared to nasopharyngeal swabs using three commercial kits for the qualitative detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).
methodsMatched nasopharyngeal and saliva samples were collected from 103 patients with either asymptomatic or symptomatic COVID-19. Both samples were evaluated using three commercial kits (TaqCheck, Allplex, and TaqPath). To evaluate sample stability, viral RNA extraction was performed in the presence or absence of an RNA-stabilizing solution. Storage conditions, including the duration, temperature, and stability after freezing and thawing of the samples, were also evaluated.
resultsAll the saliva samples showed 100% concordance with the nasopharyngeal swab results using TaqCheck and Allplex kits, and 93% using TaqPath kit. No difference was observed in the samples that used the RNA-stabilizing solution compared to the group without the solution. The
conclusionThe high concordance of SARS-CoV-2 detection via reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in matched saliva and nasopharyngeal samples using different commercial assays reinforces the concept that self-collected saliva samples are non-invasive, rapid, and reliable for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection.
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.