ReviewThe Japanese dental science review2023
Salivary SARS-CoV-2 RNA for diagnosis of COVID-19 patients: a systematic revisew and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.
Review in The Japanese dental science review, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Profiling of proteases involved in SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis in human saliva: Influence of age and gender.Journal, genetic engineering & biotechnology · 2025Article
- Saliva Has High Sensitivity and Specificity for Detecting SARS-CoV-2 Compared to Nasal Swabs but Exhibits Different Viral Dynamics from Days of Symptom Onset.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- COVID-19 monitoring of school personnel through molecular salivary test and dried blood spot analysis.Journal of global health · 2024Article
- Influenza A, like Omicron SARS-CoV-2, Is Similarly Detected in Saliva or Nasopharyngeal Samples via RT-qPCR.Viruses · 2023Article
- Oral Infection, Oral Pathology and Salivary Diagnostics of Mpox Disease: Relevance in Dentistry and OMICs Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate, self-collected, and non-invasive diagnostics are critical to perform mass-screening diagnostic tests for COVID-19. This systematic review with meta-analysis evaluated the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of salivary diagnostics for COVID-19 based on SARS-CoV-2 RNA compared with the current reference tests using a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and/or oropharyngeal swab (OPS). An electronic search was performed in seven databases to find COVID-19 diagnostic studies simultaneously using saliva and NPS/OPS tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. The search resulted in 10,902 records, of which 44 studies were considered eligible. The total sample consisted of 14,043 participants from 21 countries. The accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity for saliva compared with the NPS/OPS was 94.3% (95%CI= 92.1;95.9), 96.4% (95%CI= 96.1;96.7), and 89.2% (95%CI= 85.5;92.0), respectively. Besides, the sensitivity of NPS/OPS was 90.3% (95%CI= 86.4;93.2) and saliva was 86.4% (95%CI= 82.1;89.8) compared to the combination of saliva and NPS/OPS as the gold standard. These findings suggest a similarity in SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection between NPS/OPS swabs and saliva, and the association of both testing approaches as a reference standard can increase by 3.6% the SARS-CoV-2 detection compared with NPS/OPS alone. This study supports saliva as an attractive alternative for diagnostic platforms to provide a non-invasive detection of SARS-CoV-2.
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.