ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2024
Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of an RT-PCR test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva.
Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2024. 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.
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.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveSaliva has been proposed as a potential more convenient, cost-effective, and easier sample for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infections, but there is limited knowledge of the impact of saliva volumes and stages of infection on its sensitivity and specificity.
methodsIn this study, we assessed the performance of SARS-CoV-2 testing in 171 saliva samples from 52 mostly mildly symptomatic patients (aged 18 to 70 years) with a positive reference standard result at screening. The samples were collected at different volumes (50, 100, 300, and 500 µl of saliva) and at different stages of the disease (at enrollment, day 7, 14, and 28 post SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis). Imperfect nasopharyngeal (NP) swab nucleic acid amplification testing was used as a reference. We used a logistic regression with generalized estimating equations to estimate sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV, accounting for the correlation between repeated observations.
resultsThe sensitivity and specificity values were consistent across saliva volumes. The sensitivity of saliva samples ranged from 70.2% (95% CI, 49.3-85.0%) for 100 μl to 81.0% (95% CI, 51.9-94.4%) for 300 μl of saliva collected. The specificity values ranged between 75.8% (95% CI, 55.0-88.9%) for 50 μl and 78.8% (95% CI, 63.2-88.9%) for 100 μl saliva compared to NP swab samples. The overall percentage of positive results in NP swabs and saliva specimens remained comparable throughout the study visits. We observed no significant difference in cycle number values between saliva and NP swab specimens, irrespective of saliva volume tested.
conclusionsThe saliva collection offers a promising approach for population-based testing.
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.