ArticleCureus2024
Detection of Specific Immunoglobulins in the Saliva of Patients With Mild COVID-19.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- SARS-CoV-2 Exposure Elicits a Strong Mucosal Antibody Response That May Facilitate Quicker Mucosal Viral Clearance.Viruses · 2026Article
- Assessment of Emerging Technologies to Support Individuals With At-Risk Alcohol Consumption: Pilot Controlled Investigation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Article
- Severe Pernicious Anemia: A Case Report.Cureus · 2025Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Saliva has many advantages over blood as a biofluid, so using it for measuring and monitoring antibody responses in COVID-19 would be highly valuable. To assess the value of saliva-based IgG and IgM/IgA antibody testing in COVID-19, this cross-sectional pilot study evaluated the accuracy of salivary and serum IgG and IgM/IgA for detecting mild COVID-19 and their correlation. Fifty-one patients with mild COVID-19 (14-28 days post-symptom onset) were included in the study. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) were used to measure IgG and IgM/IgA responses to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in both serum and saliva samples using a slightly modified protocol for saliva samples. Saliva-based IgG testing had 30% sensitivity and 100% specificity, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 100% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 50%. Saliva-based IgM/IgA testing had 13.2% sensitivity and 100% specificity, with a PPV of 100% and an NPV of 28.3%. Blood and saliva IgG values were positively correlated. Saliva currently has limited diagnostic value for COVID-19 testing, at least for mild disease. Nevertheless, the significant positive correlation between blood and saliva IgG titers indicates that saliva might be a complementary biofluid for assessing systemic antibody responses to the virus, especially if the assay is further optimized across the full disease spectrum.
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.