SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2026
Comparative diagnostic performance of saliva PCR and dried blood spot PCR for congenital cytomegalovirus detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundCongenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) infection is a leading cause of non-genetic sensorineural hearing loss and neurodevelopmental impairment. This study aimed to systematically evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of saliva polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and dried blood spot (DBS) PCR for detecting cCMV in newborns.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, and Google Scholar were searched for studies published between 2010 and 2025. Eligible studies reported sufficient data to construct 2 × 2 contingency tables and used urine PCR or culture as reference standards. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, diagnostic odds ratios, and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves were estimated using random-effects and bivariate models.
resultsNineteen studies comprising 103,669 neonates were included. Saliva PCR demonstrated high pooled sensitivity (0.95, 95% CI: 0.91-0.97) and perfect specificity (1.00, 95% CI: 0.99-1.00). In contrast, DBS PCR showed lower pooled sensitivity (0.72, 95% CI: 0.45-0.89) while maintaining high specificity (0.99, 95% CI: 0.92-1.00). Subgroup analysis revealed significantly higher sensitivity for saliva PCR compared with DBS PCR (p = 0.004). SROC analysis indicated superior overall diagnostic performance for saliva PCR (AUC = 0.72) relative to DBS PCR (AUC = 0.56). Substantial heterogeneity was observed, particularly among DBS studies.
conclusionSaliva PCR demonstrates superior sensitivity and overall diagnostic accuracy for early detection of cCMV compared with DBS PCR, while both methods show high specificity. These findings support saliva PCR as the preferred modality for newborn screening where feasible, while DBS PCR may serve as a complementary or alternative approach in large-scale or resource-limited settings. CLINICAL TRIAL: Not applicable.
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.