SynthesisViruses2025
Diagnostic Performance of Salivary PCR for the Detection of Congenital Cytomegalovirus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Viruses, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative diagnostic performance of saliva PCR and dried blood spot PCR for congenital cytomegalovirus detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Pooled it
- PCR-based detection of cytomegalovirus in neonates and children, with emphasis on congenital and neonatal-screening cohorts: A systematic review and meta-analysis.SAGE open medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a major cause of neonatal morbidity, particularly sensorineural hearing loss, yet its early detection remains challenging. While urinary PCR is the current diagnostic gold standard, its implementation in neonatal settings is often limited by feasibility issues. Salivary PCR presents a more practical alternative, but its diagnostic accuracy has remained uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of salivary PCR compared to urinary PCR in detecting congenital CMV in neonates. Following PRISMA guidelines, 15 observational studies involving 29,617 neonates were analyzed using a random-effects model. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.99 and 1.00, respectively, with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 1.00 and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.91, despite moderate heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis showed high diagnostic performance across general neonates, infants of seropositive mothers and high-risk neonates (referring to neonates that are small for their gestational age (SGA), neonates who failed hearing screening, and neonates with CMV-related congenital abnormalities). The general group had the highest specificity (0.999), while high-risk neonates showed the highest sensitivity (0.981). Across all groups, NPV remained consistently above 0.994, with PPV ranging from 0.848 to 0.981. These findings confirm that salivary PCR is a highly accurate and feasible tool for congenital CMV diagnosis.
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.