Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37516121›Full record

ReviewThe Lancet. Microbe2023

The potential of saliva as an accessible and sensitive sample type for the detection of respiratory pathogens and host immunity.

Claire S Laxton, Chikondi Peno, Anne M Hahn, Orchid M Allicock, Stephanie Perniciaro, Anne L Wyllie

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Lancet. Microbe, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Claire S LaxtonDepartment of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
Chikondi PenoDepartment of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
Anne M HahnDepartment of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
Orchid M AllicockDepartment of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
Stephanie PerniciaroDepartment of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
Anne L WyllieDepartment of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA. Electronic address: anne.wyllie@yale.edu.
Yale University · US

Funding

Institutional Career Development CoreKL2TR001862 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI CANTLEY, LLOYD G, EDELMAN, E. JENNIFER · 2016 to 2025
$12.2M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR001862
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite its prominence in early scientific records, the usefulness of saliva as a respiratory specimen has been de-emphasised over the past century. However, due to its low cost and reliance on specific supply chains and the non-invasive nature of its collection, its benefits over swab-based specimens are again becoming increasingly recognised. These benefits were highlighted over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, where saliva emerged as a more practical, clinically non-inferior sample type for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 and saw numerous saliva-based diagnostic tests approved for clinical use. Looking forward, as saliva uniquely contains both respiratory secretions and immunological components, it has potentially wide applications, ranging from clinical diagnostics to post-vaccine disease burden and immunity surveillance. This Personal View seeks to summarise the existing evidence for the use of saliva in detecting respiratory pathogens, beyond SARS-CoV-2, as well as detailing methodological factors that can influence sample quality and thus, clinical utility.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 TestingHumansPandemicsSalivaSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID37516121
PMCPMC12614176
OpenAlexW4385307561

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.