Author: Trobajo-SanmartÃn, Camino; Adelantado, Marta; Navascués, Ana; Guembe, MarÃa J.; Rodrigo-Rincón, Isabel; Castilla, Jesús; Ezpeleta, Carmen
                    Title: Self-Collection of Saliva Specimens as a Suitable Alternative to Nasopharyngeal Swabs for the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR  Cord-id: u0zko1st  Document date: 2021_1_15
                    ID: u0zko1st
                    
                    Snippet: A nasopharyngeal swab is a sample used for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Saliva is a sample easier to obtain and the risk of contagion for the professional is lower. This study aimed to evaluate the utility of saliva for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This prospective study involved 674 patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. Paired nasopharyngeal and saliva samples were processed by RT-qPCR. Sensitivity, specificity, and kappa coefficient were used to evaluate the results
                    
                    
                    
                     
                    
                    
                    
                    
                        
                            
                                Document: A nasopharyngeal swab is a sample used for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Saliva is a sample easier to obtain and the risk of contagion for the professional is lower. This study aimed to evaluate the utility of saliva for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This prospective study involved 674 patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. Paired nasopharyngeal and saliva samples were processed by RT-qPCR. Sensitivity, specificity, and kappa coefficient were used to evaluate the results from both samples. We considered the influence of age, symptoms, chronic conditions, and sample processing with lysis buffer. Of the 674 patients, 636 (94.4%) had valid results from both samples. The virus detection in saliva compared to a nasopharyngeal sample (gold standard) was 51.9% (95% CI: 46.3%–57.4%) and increased to 91.6% (95% CI: 86.7%–96.5%) when the cycle threshold (Ct) was ≤ 30. The specificity of the saliva sample was 99.1% (95% CI: 97.0%–99.8%). The concordance between samples was 75% (κ = 0.50; 95% CI: 0.45–0.56). The Ct values were significantly higher in saliva. In conclusion, saliva sample utility is limited for clinical diagnosis, but could be a useful alternative for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in massive screening studies, when the availability of trained professionals for sampling or personal protection equipment is limited.
 
  Search related documents: 
                                Co phrase  search for related documents- acute respiratory and low sensitivity: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72
- acute respiratory and lysis buffer: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
- low sensitivity and lysis buffer: 1
 
                                Co phrase  search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date