ArticleBiosafety and health2024
Superior effectiveness and acceptability of saliva samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in China.
Article in Biosafety and health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Establishment and application of a rapid and visual detection method forBiosafety and health · 2026Article
- Identifying the optimal rapid antigen test for screening and determining the end of isolation: A modeling study.PLoS computational biology · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In response to problems of poor sampling quality, low sensitivity, and high demand for medical personnel regarding the current severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) oropharyngeal (OP) swab sampling used in China, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance and acceptability of saliva-based nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) in China. The results showed that, using nasopharyngeal (NP) swab results as the gold standard, the overall sensitivities for saliva specimens and OP swabs were 93.3 % and 85.0 %, the specificities were 92.6 % and 93.8 %, respectively. The results of an acceptability survey showed that the scores for saliva, OP, and NP samples were 9.46 ± 1.69, 8.11 ± 2.42, and 4.58 ± 3.82 out of 10, respectively, with significant differences among the three groups (
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.