Saliva as a non-invasive sample for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review
Khurshid, Z.; Zohaib, S.; Joshi, C.; Moin, S. F.; Zafar, M. S.; Speicher, D. J.
Show abstract
The accepted gold standard for diagnosing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA from nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS). However, shortage of reagents has made NPS collection challenging, and alternative samples need to be explored. Due to its non-invasive nature, saliva has considerable diagnostic potential. Therefore, to guide diagnostic laboratories globally, we conducted a systematic review to determine the utility of saliva for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. A systematic search of major databases (PubMed, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar) was performed to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. There was a total of 10 publications that fit the criteria for review. Most studies collected drooled whole saliva from hospitalized patients or pipetted saliva from intubated patients. Saliva was positive in 31-92% of patients depending on the cohort and length of hospitalization. Viral loads in saliva are comparable to those in NPS and ranged from 9.9 x 102 to 1.2 x 108 copies/mL during the first week of symptoms and decrease over time. Saliva can be positive up to 20 days post-symptom onset with viral loads correlating with symptom severity and degree of tissue damage. Based on these findings, we made suggestions to guide the clinical laboratory and suggest the need for diagnostic accuracy studies for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 from saliva.
Matching journals
The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of GENECUBE ® HQ SARS-CoV-2 for anterior nasal samples and saliva samples with a new rapid examination protocol 95%
- Screening for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR: saliva or nasopharyngeal swab? Systematic review and meta-analysis 95%
- Rapid processing of SARS-CoV-2 containing specimens for direct RT-PCR 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Saliva as a potential clinical specimen for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 96%
- Real-life performance of a novel antigen detection test on nasopharyngeal specimens for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis: a prospective study 94%
- Profiling the positive detection rate of SARS-CoV-2 using polymerase chain reaction in different types of clinical specimens: a systematic review and meta-analysis 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- SalivaSTAT: Direct-PCR and pooling of saliva samples collected in healthcare and community setting for SARS-CoV-2 mass surveillance 95%
- Evaluation and modelling of the performance of an automated SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay according to sample type, target population and epidemic trends 95%
- Feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 screening in educational settings and children aged < 12 years 95%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Validation and implementation of a direct RT-qPCR method for rapid screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection by using non-invasive saliva samples 96%
- Self-collected oral, nasal and saliva samples yield sensitivity comparable to professional-collected oro-nasopharyngeal swabs in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis 95%
- Efficacy of a novel SARS-CoV-2 detection kit without RNA extraction and purification 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.