Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39339970›Full record

ArticleViruses2024

Validation of Saliva as the Clinical Specimen Type for a University-Wide COVID-19 Surveillance Program.

Michael L Farrell, Anton V Bryksin, Emily Ryan, Jessica Lin, Naima Djeddar, German Khunteev, Benjamin Holton, Miles Paca, Nicholas Speller, James T Merrill and 5 more

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

15 authors.

Michael L FarrellAdvanced Concepts Lab, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA 30318, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6051-7798
Anton V BryksinPetit Institute for Bioengineering and Bioscience, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
Emily RyanPetit Institute for Bioengineering and Bioscience, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
Jessica LinPetit Institute for Bioengineering and Bioscience, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9653-9160
Naima DjeddarPetit Institute for Bioengineering and Bioscience, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
German KhunteevPetit Institute for Bioengineering and Bioscience, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
Benjamin HoltonStamps Student Health Services, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
Miles PacaAdvanced Concepts Lab, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA 30318, USA.
Nicholas SpellerAdvanced Concepts Lab, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA 30318, USA.
James T MerrillAdvanced Concepts Lab, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA 30318, USA.ORCID 0009-0005-2640-9407
Ted M RossAnimal Health Research Center, Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1947-7469
Robert J HoganAnimal Health Research Center, Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0225-830X
Greg GibsonPetit Institute for Bioengineering and Bioscience, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5352-5877
Andrés J GarcíaPetit Institute for Bioengineering and Bioscience, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6602-2518
Michael P ShannonAdvanced Concepts Lab, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA 30318, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

COVID-19NasopharynxSalivaSARS-CoV-2Specimen HandlingCOVID-19 TestingGeorgiaHumansUniversitiesCOVID-19nasopharyngeal swapRNAsalivaSARS-CoV-2surveillance

Identifiers

PMID39339970
PMCPMC11437455

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.