ArticleIJID regions2023
Use of saliva as an alternative diagnostic method for diagnosis of COVID-19.
Article in IJID regions, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 virus in saliva, stool, and urine samples of COVID-19 patients in Bihar, India.Access microbiology · 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mass population testing has been recommended to contain the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. However, the use of nasopharyngeal swab specimens has caused many logistic challenges. This study investigated the sensitivity and specificity of saliva as a non-invasively-obtained specimen for molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Methods: In total, 153 patients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who had been admitted to the regional referral hospital or who self-isolated at home were included in this study. Nasopharyngeal swab specimens and saliva samples were collected on the same day, and were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Results: The sensitivity and specificity of saliva samples were 81.5% and 76.4%, respectively, in cases that had been confirmed as COVID-19 using nasopharyngeal swab samples. Positive predictive values and negative predictive values were 92.3% and 54.1%, respectively. The highest detection rates were found among samples collected 4-7 days since symptom onset. Conclusion: Saliva samples showed comparable performance to nasopharyngeal swab specimens for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in adults. The performance of saliva as a diagnostic specimen for COVID-19 testing is particularly significant during the first week of 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.