ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Application of oral fluid for quantitative nucleic acid and antibody detection of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: To evaluate the performance of oral fluid (OF) for quantitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid and IgG antibody, and explore its application value, we compared OF with traditional samples using multiple detection methods. Methods: Real-time PCR (RT-PCR) and digital PCR (dPCR) were used to detect SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid in 213 paired OF and throat swab samples from COVID-19 cases. Chemiluminescence was applied to detect IgG antibody in paired OF and serum samples, while colloidal gold method was used specifically for OF. Results: RT-PCR results showed that the positivity rates of OF and throat swabs were 80.75% (172/213) and 88.73% (189/213) respectively ( Conclusion: As a non-invasive, convenient, safe, and self-collectible biological sample, OF shows high consistency in detection efficacy compared with traditional throat swabs and serum. It thus holds important application value for the diagnosis, monitoring, and epidemic prevention and control of COVID-19.
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.