ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Similar Sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Oropharyngeal/Nasopharyngeal and Saliva Samples on the Hologic Panther Platform.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOropharyngeal (OP) and nasopharyngeal (NP) sampling has historically been considered the reference specimen type used for respiratory virus detection. Saliva could be a less invasive alternative for SARS-CoV-2 detection, but limited evidence is available.
methodsThe technical and clinical performance of saliva was compared to OP/NP on the Hologic Panther platform with two Aptima assays, the End-Point Transcription-Mediated Amplification assay (EP-TMA) and Real-Time Transcription-Mediated Amplification assay (RT-TMA). The samples were collected at the Public Health Service Testing Site XL location in Schiphol Amsterdam Airport. At the site, the Regional Public Health Laboratory Kennemerland (RPHLK) has a fully equipped laboratory facility.
resultsA total of 374 samples (187 OP/NP swabs and 187 saliva samples) were collected from 187 unique patients. The Real-Time Transcription-Mediated Amplification assay (RT-TMA) resulted in comparable sensitivities for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in both the OP/NP swabs (88.3%; 113/128) and saliva samples (87.5%; 112/128). The End-Point Transcription-Mediated Amplification assay (EP-TMA) analyses showed a similar sensitivity (86.7%; 111/128) in the OP/NP swabs but a lower sensitivity in the saliva samples (80.5%; 103/128). Within the discordant analyses, we found no associations in the symptoms, earlier SARS-CoV-2 infections and eating, smoking, drinking and tooth brushing habits within one hour before testing.
conclusionsThe Hologic Panther platform Real-Time Transcription-Mediated Amplification assay (RT-TMA) yields a sensitivity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva that is comparable to the OP/NP swabs derived from participants presenting themselves at a public health testing facility with minimal or mild symptoms.
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.