Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Saliva as alternative to naso-oropharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-qPCR: a multicenter cross-sectional diagnostic validation study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Saliva as alternative to naso-oropharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-qPCR: a multicenter cross-sectional diagnostic validation study
Do you wish to request the book?
Saliva as alternative to naso-oropharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-qPCR: a multicenter cross-sectional diagnostic validation study
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Saliva as alternative to naso-oropharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-qPCR: a multicenter cross-sectional diagnostic validation study
2022
Overview
Saliva has been demonstrated as feasible alternative to naso-oropharyngeal swab (NOS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection through reverse transcription quantitative/real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). This study compared the diagnostic agreement of conventional NOS, saliva with RNA extraction (SE) and saliva without RNA extraction (SalivaDirect) processing for RT-qPCR in identifying SARS-CoV-2. All techniques were also compared, as separate index tests, to a composite reference standard (CRS) where positive and negative results were defined as SARS-CoV-2 detection in either one or no sample, respectively. Of 517 paired samples, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 150 (29.01%) NOS and 151 (29.21%) saliva specimens. The saliva-based tests were noted to have a sensitivity, specificity and accuracy (95% confidence interval) of 92.67% (87.26%, 96.28%), 97.55% (95.40%, 98.87%) and 96.13% (94.09%, 97.62%), respectively, for SE RT-qPCR and 91.33% (85.64%, 95.30%), 98.91% (97.23%, 99.70%) and 96.71% (94.79%, 98.07%), respectively, for SalivaDirect RT-qPCR compared to NOS RT-qPCR. Compared to CRS, all platforms demonstrated statistically similar diagnostic performance. These findings suggest that both conventional and streamlined saliva RT-qPCR are at least non-inferior to conventional NOS RT-qPCR in detecting SARS-CoV-2.
Publisher
Nature Publishing Group UK,Nature Publishing Group,Nature Portfolio
Subject
/ 631/337
/ 631/61
/ 692/308
/ 692/4017
/ 692/700
/ Clinical Laboratory Techniques - methods
/ COVID-19
/ Humanities and Social Sciences
/ Humans
/ Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods
/ Saliva
/ SARS-CoV-2 - isolation & purification
/ Science
