Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36928472›Full record

Observational studyPloS one2023

Persistence of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva: Implications for late-stage diagnosis and infectious duration.

Abby Chopoorian, Padmapriya Banada, Robert Reiss, David Elson, Samuel Desind, Claire Park, Sukalyani Banik, Emily Hennig, Aanchal Wats, Austin Togba and 8 more

Open access · goldFull text readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. COVID-19 in Dental Practice Is Prevented by Eugenol Responsible for the Ambient Odor Specific to Dental Offices: Possibility and Speculation.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Abby ChopoorianDepartment of Medicine, Public Health Research Institute, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4338-7455
Padmapriya BanadaDepartment of Medicine, Public Health Research Institute, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, United States of America.
Robert ReissDepartment of Medicine, Public Health Research Institute, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, United States of America.
David ElsonSchool of Medicine, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, United States of America.
Samuel DesindDepartment of Medicine, Public Health Research Institute, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, United States of America.
Claire ParkSchool of Medicine, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-2468-7575
Sukalyani BanikDepartment of Medicine, Public Health Research Institute, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, United States of America.
Emily HennigDepartment of Medicine, Public Health Research Institute, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, United States of America.
Aanchal WatsDepartment of Medicine, Public Health Research Institute, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2706-9660
Austin TogbaRutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, New Jersey, United States of America.
Abraham WeiDepartment of Medicine, Public Health Research Institute, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3192-2975
Naranjargal DaivaaDepartment of Medicine, Public Health Research Institute, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, United States of America.
Laura PaloSchool of Medicine, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, United States of America.
Mitchell HirschSchool of Medicine, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-1139-7667
Carter CampbellSchool of Medicine, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, United States of America.
Pooja SaiganeshSchool of Medicine, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, United States of America.
David AllandDepartment of Medicine, Public Health Research Institute, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, United States of America.
Yingda L XieDepartment of Medicine, Public Health Research Institute, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5587-4731
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey · US

Funding

TB detection in children using a novel stool-based GeneXpert assayR01AI131617 · NIAID · RBHS-NEW JERSEY MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI ALLAND, DAVID, NICOL, MARK PATRICK · 2018 to 2022
$2.9M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI131617
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Saliva has been a COVID-19 diagnostic specimen of interest due to its simple collection, scalability, and yield. Yet COVID-19 testing and estimates of the infectious period remain largely based on nasopharyngeal and nasal swabs. We sought to evaluate whether saliva testing captured prolonged presence of SARS-CoV-2 and potential infectiousness later in the disease course. We conducted an observational study of symptomatic COVID-19 patients at University Hospital in Newark, NJ. Paired saliva and nasal specimens from 96 patients were analyzed, including longitudinal analysis of paired observations from 28 of these patients who had multiple time-points. Saliva detected significantly more cases of COVID-19 beyond 5 days (86.1% [99/115] saliva vs 48.7% [56/115] nasal, p-value < 0.001), 9 days (79.4% [50/63] saliva vs 36.5% [23/63] nasal, p-value < 0.001) and 14 days (71.4% [20/28] saliva vs 32.1% [9/28] nasal, p-value = 0.010) of symptoms. Additionally, saliva yielded lower cycle thresholds across all time periods, indicative of higher viral loads in saliva. In the longitudinal analysis, a log-rank analysis indicated that the survival curve for saliva was significantly different from the curve for nasal swabs (p<0.001) with a median survival time for saliva of 18 days compared to 13 days for nasal swabs. We additionally performed saliva viral cultures among a similar COVID-19 patient cohort and noted patients with positive saliva viral cultures between 7 to 28 days of symptoms. Findings from this study suggest that SARS-CoV-2 RNA persists longer and in higher abundance in saliva compared to nasal swabs, with potential of prolonged propagating virus. Testing saliva may thus increase yield for detecting potentially infectious virus even beyond the first five days of symptomatic COVID-19.

Indexed as

Communicable DiseasesCOVID-19COVID-19 TestingHumansNasopharynxRNA, ViralSalivaSARS-CoV-2Specimen HandlingRNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID36928472
PMCPMC10019618
OpenAlexW4327564964

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read294
identifiers read10
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.