ArticleBMC infectious diseases2023
Accuracy of saliva for SARS-CoV-2 detection in outpatients and their household contacts during the circulation of the Omicron variant of concern.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the diagnostic capacities of saliva sampling from pediatric patients: Protocol for a randomized intra-individual study.MethodsX · 2026Article
- Cohort profile: follow-up of a household cohort throughout five epidemic waves of SARS-CoV-2 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Cadernos de saude publica · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs are considered the gold standard for severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) detection, several studies have shown that saliva is an alternative specimen for COVID-19 diagnosis and screening.
methodsTo analyze the utility of saliva for the diagnosis of COVID-19 during the circulation of the Omicron variant, participants were enrolled in an ongoing cohort designed to assess the natural history of SARS-CoV-2 infection in adults and children. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and Cohen's kappa coefficient were calculated to assess diagnostic performance.
resultsOverall, 818 samples were collected from 365 outpatients from January 3 to February 2, 2022. The median age was 32.8 years (range: 3-94 years). RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 was confirmed in 97/121 symptomatic patients (80.2%) and 62/244 (25.4%) asymptomatic patients. Substantial agreement between saliva and combined nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal samples was observed with a Cohen's kappa value of 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67-0.81]. Sensitivity was 77% (95% CI: 70.9-82.2), specificity 95% (95% CI: 91.9-97), PPV 89.8% (95% CI: 83.1-94.4), NPV 87.9% (95% CI: 83.6-91.5), and accuracy 88.5% (95% CI: 85.0-91.4). Sensitivity was higher among samples collected from symptomatic children aged three years and older and adolescents [84% (95% CI: 70.5-92)] with a Cohen's kappa value of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.35-0.91).
conclusionsSaliva is a reliable fluid for detecting SARS-CoV-2, especially in symptomatic children and adolescents during the circulation of the Omicron variant.
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.