Back

Feasibility and accuracy of a novel saliva sampling method for large-scale SARS-CoV-2 screening in children < 12 years of age

Hoch, M.; Vogel, S.; Eberle, U.; Kolberg, L.; Gruenthaler, V.; Fingerle, V.; Ackermann, N.; Sing, A.; Liebl, B.; Huebner, J.; Kuttiadan, S.; Rack-Hoch, A.; Meyer-Buehn, M.; Schober, T.; von Both, U.

2021-04-18 infectious diseases
10.1101/2021.04.17.21255651
Show abstract

Children have been disproportionately affected during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to assess a saliva-based algorithm for SARS-CoV-2 testing to be used in schools and childcare institutions under pandemic conditions. A weekly SARS-CoV-2 sentinel study in primary schools, kindergartens and childcare facilities was conducted over a 12-week-period. In a sub-study covering 7 weeks, 1895 paired oropharyngeal and saliva samples were processed for SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR testing in both asymptomatic children (n=1243) and staff (n=652). Forty-nine additional concurrent swab and saliva samples were collected from SARS-CoV-2 infected patients (patient cohort). The Salivette(R) system was used for saliva collection and assessed for feasibility and diagnostic performance. For children a mean of 1.18 ml saliva could be obtained. Based on results from both cohorts, the Salivette(R) testing algorithm demonstrated specificity of 100% (95% CI 99.7 - 100) and sensitivity of 94.9% (95% CI 81.4 - 99.1) with oropharyngeal swabs as reference. Agreement between sampling systems was 100% for moderate to high viral load situations (defined as Ct-values < 33 from oropharyngeal swabs). Comparative analysis of Ct-values derived from saliva vs. oropharyngeal swabs demonstrated a significant difference (mean 4.23; 95% CI 2.48-6.00). In conclusion, the Salivette(R) system proved to be an easy-to-use, safe and feasible saliva collection method and a more pleasant alternative to oropharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing in children aged 3 years and above.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 31%
15.5%
2
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
based on 77 papers
Top 0.5%
12.6%
3
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
based on 14 papers
Top 0.1%
5.4%
4
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 36%
5.1%
5
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
based on 54 papers
Top 0.6%
4.5%
6
Journal of Infection
based on 64 papers
Top 0.7%
4.5%
7
Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal
based on 16 papers
Top 0.7%
2.8%
50% of probability mass above
8
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
based on 115 papers
Top 5%
2.5%
9
Journal of Clinical Virology
based on 54 papers
Top 1%
2.3%
10
Emerging Infectious Diseases
based on 84 papers
Top 5%
2.3%
11
BMJ Open
based on 553 papers
Top 36%
2.3%
12
Journal of Virological Methods
based on 20 papers
Top 1.0%
2.3%
13
Eurosurveillance
based on 77 papers
Top 4%
1.8%
14
Clinical Infectious Diseases
based on 219 papers
Top 13%
1.8%
15
Journal of Medical Virology
based on 95 papers
Top 5%
1.8%
16
Diagnostics
based on 36 papers
Top 4%
1.3%
17
Nature Communications
based on 483 papers
Top 34%
1.3%
18
Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease
based on 15 papers
Top 0.4%
1.2%
19
Frontiers in Medicine
based on 99 papers
Top 15%
1.2%
20
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
based on 50 papers
Top 9%
0.8%
21
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
based on 137 papers
Top 10%
0.8%
22
Vaccine
based on 140 papers
Top 5%
0.7%
23
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
based on 124 papers
Top 12%
0.7%
24
Microbiology Spectrum
based on 86 papers
Top 4%
0.7%
25
Frontiers in Public Health
based on 135 papers
Top 28%
0.7%