Assessment of the use and quick preparation of saliva for rapid microbiological diagnosis of COVID-19.
Vila, J.; Fernandez-Pittol, M.; Hurtado, J. C.; Moreno-Garcia, E.; Rubio Garcia, E.; Navarro, M.; Valiente, M.; Peiro, A.; Seijas, N.; Capon, A.; Martinez, M. J.; Casals-Pascual, C.
Show abstract
The objective of this study was to assess the performance of direct real time RT-PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 in heated saliva samples, avoiding the RNA isolation step. Oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swabs together with saliva samples were obtained from 51 patients clinically diagnosed as potentially having COVID-19. Two different methods were compared: 1. RNA was extracted from 500 l of sample using a MagNA Pure Compact Instrument with an elution volume of 50l and 2. 700{micro}L of saliva were heat-inactivated at 96{degrees}C for 15 minutes, and directly subjected to RT-PCR. One step real time RT-PCR was performed using 5 l of extracted RNA or directly from 5 l of heated sample. RT-PCR was performed targeting the SARS-CoV-2 envelope (E) gene region. Diagnostic performance was assessed using the results of the RT-PCR from nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs as the gold standard. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were 81.08%, 92.86%, 96.77% and 65.00%, respectively when RNA extraction was included in the protocol with saliva, whereas sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were 83.78%, 92.86%, 68.42% and 96.88%, respectively, for the heat-inactivation protocol. However, when the analysis was performed exclusively on saliva samples with a limited time from the onset of symptoms (<9 days, N=28), these values were 90%, 87.5%, 44% and 98.75% for the heat-inactivation protocol. The study showed that RT-PCR can be performed using saliva in an RNA extraction free protocol, showing good sensitivity and specificity.
Matching journals
The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- High efficacy of saliva in detecting SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR in adults and children 97%
- Sensitivity of rapid antigen testing and RT-PCR performed on nasopharyngeal swabs versus saliva samples in COVID-19 hospitalized patients: results of a prospective comparative trial (RESTART) 96%
- Assessment of a loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay for the rapid detection of pathogenic bacteria from respiratory samples in patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 screening in educational settings and children aged < 12 years 97%
- Evaluation and modelling of the performance of an automated SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay according to sample type, target population and epidemic trends 96%
- SalivaSTAT: Direct-PCR and pooling of saliva samples collected in healthcare and community setting for SARS-CoV-2 mass surveillance 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Real-life performance of a novel antigen detection test on nasopharyngeal specimens for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis: a prospective study 96%
- Saliva as a potential clinical specimen for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 95%
- Evaluation Of A New “All In One” Sars-Cov-2 Antigen-Detecting Rapid Diagnostic Test And Self-Test: Diagnostic Performance And Usability On Child And Adult Population 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of sample collection and transport strategies to enhance yield, accessibility, and biosafety of COVID-19 RT-PCR testing 96%
- Acceptable Performance of the Abbott ID NOW Among Symptomatic Individuals with Confirmed COVID-19 93%
- Virucidal activity of CPC-containing oral rinses against SARS-CoV-2 variants and are active in the presence of human saliva 92%
"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.