• English
    • español
    • português (Brasil)
  • English 
    • English
    • español
    • português (Brasil)
  • Login
View Item 
  •   COVID-19
  • Resources in English
  • Technical documents and research evidence on COVID-19
  • View Item
  •   COVID-19
  • Resources in English
  • Technical documents and research evidence on COVID-19
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

RT-qPCR assays based on saliva rather than on nasopharyngeal swabs are possible but should be interpreted with caution: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis.

 
Thumbnail
Date
2020-09-07
Author
Riccò, Matteo et al.
Metadata
Show full item record
Abstract
Background and aim of the work: The ongoing pandemic has elicited an increasing interest regarding the SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA detection in saliva specimens rather than through nasopharyngeal swabs. Our aim was to conduct a meta-analysis on the sensitivity and specificity of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA detection through RT-qPCR based on salivary specimens compared to conventional nasopharyngeal swabs. Methods: We reported our meta-analysis according to the PRISMA statement. We searched Pubmed, Embase, and pre-print archive medRxiv.og for eligible studies published up to June 1st, 2020. Raw data included true/false positive and negative tests, and the total number of tests. Sensitivity and specificity data were calculated for every study, and then pooled in a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 measure. Reporting bias was assessed by means of funnel plots and regression analysis. Results: The systematic review eventually retrieved 14 studies including a total of 15 estimates, the were included in quantitative synthesis. We found a pooled specificity of 97.7% (95%CI 93.8-99.2) and a pooled sensitivity of 83.4% (95%CI 73.1–90.4), with an overall agreement assessed by means of Cohen’s kappa equals to 0.750, 95%CI 0.62-0.88 (i.e. moderate agreement), with high heterogeneity and risk of reporting bias. Conclusions: In conclusion, diagnostic tests based on salivary specimens are somewhat reliable, but relatively few studies have been carried out. Moreover, such studies are characterized by low numbers and low sample power. Therefore, the of salivary samples is currently questionable for clinical purposes and cannot substitute other more conventional RT-qPCR based on nasopharyngeal swabs.
URI
https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v91i3.10020
Collections
  • Technical documents and research evidence on COVID-19

Browse

AllCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesCategorySubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesCategorySubjects

My Account

LoginRegister

Pan American Health Organization
World Health Organization. Regional Office for the Americas
525 Twenty-third Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037, United States of America

Content Disclaimer (Important notes about the material)

Links

  • WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP)
  • WHO Coronavirus disease R&D Blueprint
  • WHO Database of Publications on Coronavirus Disease
  • PAHO Coronavirus Disease
  • PAHO/BIREME Windows of Knowledge COVID-19
  • Evidence aid Coronavirus (COVID-19) resources

  • PAHO Digital Library (IRIS PAHO)
  • Virtual Health Library (VHL)
  • Global Index Medicus (GIM)