ArticleIndian journal of medical microbiology
Validating saliva as a biological sample for cost-effective, rapid and routine screening for SARS-CoV-2.
Article in Indian journal of medical microbiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- How Feasible is the Use of Saliva for Antiviral Therapeutic Drug Monitoring? A Systematic Review and Analysis.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2026Pooled it
- Gene Expression Profiling of SARS-CoV-2 Host Entry Factors in Nasal and Oral Cavities: Evidence from Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients.Current microbiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeCompared to nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs (N/OPS-VTM), non-invasive saliva samples have enormous potential for scalability and routine population screening of SARS-CoV-2. In this study, we investigate the efficacy of saliva samples relative to N/OPS-VTM for use as a direct source for RT-PCR based SARS-CoV-2 detection.
methodsWe collected paired nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs and saliva samples from suspected positive SARS-CoV-2 patients and tested using RT-PCR. We used generalized linear models to investigate factors that explain result agreement. Further, we used simulations to evaluate the effectiveness of saliva-based screening in restricting the spread of infection in a large campus such as an educational institution.
resultsWe observed a 75.4% agreement between saliva and N/OPS-VTM, that increased drastically to 83% in samples stored for less than three days. Such samples processed within two days of collection showed 74.5% test sensitivity. Our simulations suggest that a test with 75% sensitivity, but high daily capacity can be very effective in limiting the size of infection clusters in a workspace. Guided by these results, we successfully implemented a saliva-based screening in the Bangalore Life Sciences Cluster (BLiSC) campus.
conclusionThese results suggest that saliva may be a viable alternate source for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance if samples are processed immediately. Although saliva shows slightly lower sensitivity levels when compared to N/OPS-VTM, saliva collection is logistically advantageous. We strongly recommend the implementation of saliva-based screening strategies for large workplaces and in schools, as well as for population-level screening and routine surveillance as we learn to live with the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
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.