Back

Saliva Sample as a Non-Invasive Specimen for the Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19): a Cross-Sectional Study

Pasomsub, E.; Watcharananan, S. P.; Boonyawat, K.; Janchompoo, P.; Wongtabtim, G.; Suksuwan, W.; Sungkanuparph, S.; Phuphuakrat, A.

2020-04-22 infectious diseases
10.1101/2020.04.17.20070045
Show abstract

ObjectivesAmid the increasing number of global pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases, there is a need for a quick and easy method to obtain a non-invasive sample for the detection of this novel coronavirus 2019 (SARS-CoV-2). We aimed to investigate the potential use of saliva samples as a non-invasive tool for the diagnosis of COVID-19. MethodsFrom 27 March to 4 April, 2020, we prospectively collected saliva samples and a standard nasopharyngeal and throat swab in persons seeking care at an acute respiratory infection clinic in a university hospital during the outbreak of COVID-19. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was performed, and the results of the two specimens were compared. ResultsTwo-hundred pairs of the samples were collected. Sixty-nine (34.5%) patients were male, and the median (interquartile) age was 36 (28-48) years. Using nasopharyngeal and throat swab RT-PCR as the reference standard, the prevalence of COVID-19 diagnosed by nasopharyngeal and throat swab RT-PCR was 9.5%. The sensitivity and specificity of the saliva sample RT-PCR were 84.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 79.2%-89.3%], and 98.9% (95% CI 97.5-100.3%), respectively. An analysis of the agreement between the two specimens demonstrated 97.5% observed agreement (kappa coefficient 0.851, 95% CI 0.723-0.979; p <0.001). ConclusionsSaliva specimens can be used for the diagnosis of COVID-19. The collection method is non-invasive, and non-aerosol generating. Using a saliva sample as a specimen for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 could facilitate the diagnosis of the disease, which is one of the strategies that helps in controlling the epidemic.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 22%
18.1%
2
Journal of Medical Virology
based on 95 papers
Top 0.7%
8.1%
3
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
based on 115 papers
Top 0.7%
6.2%
4
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
based on 14 papers
Top 0.1%
4.8%
5
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 39%
4.8%
6
Diagnostics
based on 36 papers
Top 0.9%
3.1%
7
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
based on 77 papers
Top 2%
3.1%
8
Journal of Clinical Virology
based on 54 papers
Top 0.8%
3.0%
50% of probability mass above
9
Journal of Virological Methods
based on 20 papers
Top 0.6%
3.0%
10
Frontiers in Medicine
based on 99 papers
Top 7%
2.6%
11
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
based on 54 papers
Top 1%
2.6%
12
Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy
based on 15 papers
Top 0.1%
2.5%
13
Heliyon
based on 57 papers
Top 4%
2.0%
14
BMJ Open
based on 553 papers
Top 38%
1.9%
15
Journal of Infection
based on 64 papers
Top 3%
1.7%
16
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
based on 22 papers
Top 2%
1.7%
17
BioMed Research International
based on 11 papers
Top 1%
1.4%
18
Emerging Infectious Diseases
based on 84 papers
Top 8%
1.4%
19
Microbiology Spectrum
based on 86 papers
Top 2%
1.4%
20
BMC Infectious Diseases
based on 110 papers
Top 13%
1.3%
21
Frontiers in Public Health
based on 135 papers
Top 23%
0.9%
22
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
based on 11 papers
Top 0.6%
0.8%
23
Cureus
based on 64 papers
Top 16%
0.8%
24
Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease
based on 15 papers
Top 0.5%
0.8%
25
Clinical Infectious Diseases
based on 219 papers
Top 19%
0.8%
26
Eurosurveillance
based on 77 papers
Top 7%
0.8%
27
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
based on 124 papers
Top 11%
0.7%
28
Epidemiology and Infection
based on 80 papers
Top 12%
0.7%