ArticleViruses2024
Validation of Saliva as the Clinical Specimen Type for a University-Wide COVID-19 Surveillance Program.
Article in Viruses, 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.
- Magnetically Retrievable Platinum Nanoreporters for Efficient Lateral Flow Immunoassay in Complex Bio-Samples.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Georgia Institute of Technology made the decision to keep the university doors open for on-campus attendance. To manage COVID-19 infection rates, internal resources were applied to develop and implement a mass asymptomatic surveillance program. The objective was to identify infections early for proper follow-on verification testing, contact tracing, and quarantine/isolation as needed. Program success depended on frequent and voluntary sample collection from over 40,000 students, faculty, and staff personnel. At that time, the nasopharyngeal (NP) swab, not saliva, was the main accepted sample type for COVID-19 testing. However, due to collection discomfort and the inability to be self-collected, the NP swab was not feasible for voluntary and frequent self-collection. Therefore, saliva was selected as the clinical sample type and validated. A saliva collection kit and a sample processing and analysis workflow were developed. The results of a clinical sample-type comparison study between co-collected and matched NP swabs and saliva samples showed 96.7% positive agreement and 100% negative agreement. During the Fall 2020 and Spring 2021 semesters, 319,988 samples were collected and tested. The program resulted in maintaining a low overall mean positivity rate of 0.78% and 0.54% for the Fall 2020 and Spring 2021 semesters, respectively. For this high-throughput asymptomatic COVID-19 screening application, saliva was an exceptionally good sample type.
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.