Screening for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR: Saliva or nasopharyngeal swab? Rapid review and meta-analysis

<h4>Background</h4> Diagnosis of COVID-19 in symptomatic patients and screening of populations for SARS-CoV-2 infection require access to straightforward, low-cost and high-throughput testing. The recommended nasopharyngeal swab tests are limited by the need of trained professionals and...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Nusaïbah Ibrahimi, Agnès Delaunay-Moisan, Catherine Hill, Gwénaël Le Teuff, Jean-François Rupprecht, Jean-Yves Thuret, Dan Chaltiel, Marie-Claude Potier
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2021-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8191978/?tool=EBI
id doaj-7bd6d11757ec48e28dc8035bc0f68c37
record_format Article
spelling doaj-7bd6d11757ec48e28dc8035bc0f68c372021-06-13T04:30:44ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032021-01-01166Screening for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR: Saliva or nasopharyngeal swab? Rapid review and meta-analysisNusaïbah IbrahimiAgnès Delaunay-MoisanCatherine HillGwénaël Le TeuffJean-François RupprechtJean-Yves ThuretDan ChaltielMarie-Claude Potier<h4>Background</h4> Diagnosis of COVID-19 in symptomatic patients and screening of populations for SARS-CoV-2 infection require access to straightforward, low-cost and high-throughput testing. The recommended nasopharyngeal swab tests are limited by the need of trained professionals and specific consumables and this procedure is poorly accepted as a screening method In contrast, saliva sampling can be self-administered. <h4>Methods</h4> In order to compare saliva and nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, we designed a meta-analysis searching in PubMed up to December 29th, 2020 with the key words “(SARS-CoV-2 OR COVID-19 OR COVID19) AND (salivary OR saliva OR oral fluid)) NOT (review[Publication Type]) NOT (PrePrint[Publication Type])” applying the following criteria: records published in peer reviewed scientific journals, in English, with at least 15 nasopharyngeal/orapharyngeal swabs and saliva paired samples tested by RT-PCR, studies with available raw data including numbers of positive and negative tests with the two sampling methods. For all studies, concordance and sensitivity were calculated and then pooled in a random-effects model. <h4>Findings</h4> A total of 377 studies were retrieved, of which 50 were eligible, reporting on 16,473 pairs of nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal and saliva samples. Meta-analysis showed high concordance, 92.5% (95%CI: 89.5–94.7), across studies and pooled sensitivities of 86.5% (95%CI: 83.4–89.1) and 92.0% (95%CI: 89.1–94.2) from saliva and nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs respectively. Heterogeneity across studies was 72.0% for saliva and 85.0% for nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs. <h4>Interpretation</h4> Our meta-analysis strongly suggests that saliva could be used for frequent testing of COVID-19 patients and “en masse” screening of populations.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8191978/?tool=EBI
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Nusaïbah Ibrahimi
Agnès Delaunay-Moisan
Catherine Hill
Gwénaël Le Teuff
Jean-François Rupprecht
Jean-Yves Thuret
Dan Chaltiel
Marie-Claude Potier
spellingShingle Nusaïbah Ibrahimi
Agnès Delaunay-Moisan
Catherine Hill
Gwénaël Le Teuff
Jean-François Rupprecht
Jean-Yves Thuret
Dan Chaltiel
Marie-Claude Potier
Screening for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR: Saliva or nasopharyngeal swab? Rapid review and meta-analysis
PLoS ONE
author_facet Nusaïbah Ibrahimi
Agnès Delaunay-Moisan
Catherine Hill
Gwénaël Le Teuff
Jean-François Rupprecht
Jean-Yves Thuret
Dan Chaltiel
Marie-Claude Potier
author_sort Nusaïbah Ibrahimi
title Screening for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR: Saliva or nasopharyngeal swab? Rapid review and meta-analysis
title_short Screening for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR: Saliva or nasopharyngeal swab? Rapid review and meta-analysis
title_full Screening for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR: Saliva or nasopharyngeal swab? Rapid review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Screening for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR: Saliva or nasopharyngeal swab? Rapid review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Screening for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR: Saliva or nasopharyngeal swab? Rapid review and meta-analysis
title_sort screening for sars-cov-2 by rt-pcr: saliva or nasopharyngeal swab? rapid review and meta-analysis
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2021-01-01
description <h4>Background</h4> Diagnosis of COVID-19 in symptomatic patients and screening of populations for SARS-CoV-2 infection require access to straightforward, low-cost and high-throughput testing. The recommended nasopharyngeal swab tests are limited by the need of trained professionals and specific consumables and this procedure is poorly accepted as a screening method In contrast, saliva sampling can be self-administered. <h4>Methods</h4> In order to compare saliva and nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, we designed a meta-analysis searching in PubMed up to December 29th, 2020 with the key words “(SARS-CoV-2 OR COVID-19 OR COVID19) AND (salivary OR saliva OR oral fluid)) NOT (review[Publication Type]) NOT (PrePrint[Publication Type])” applying the following criteria: records published in peer reviewed scientific journals, in English, with at least 15 nasopharyngeal/orapharyngeal swabs and saliva paired samples tested by RT-PCR, studies with available raw data including numbers of positive and negative tests with the two sampling methods. For all studies, concordance and sensitivity were calculated and then pooled in a random-effects model. <h4>Findings</h4> A total of 377 studies were retrieved, of which 50 were eligible, reporting on 16,473 pairs of nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal and saliva samples. Meta-analysis showed high concordance, 92.5% (95%CI: 89.5–94.7), across studies and pooled sensitivities of 86.5% (95%CI: 83.4–89.1) and 92.0% (95%CI: 89.1–94.2) from saliva and nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs respectively. Heterogeneity across studies was 72.0% for saliva and 85.0% for nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs. <h4>Interpretation</h4> Our meta-analysis strongly suggests that saliva could be used for frequent testing of COVID-19 patients and “en masse” screening of populations.
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8191978/?tool=EBI
work_keys_str_mv AT nusaibahibrahimi screeningforsarscov2byrtpcrsalivaornasopharyngealswabrapidreviewandmetaanalysis
AT agnesdelaunaymoisan screeningforsarscov2byrtpcrsalivaornasopharyngealswabrapidreviewandmetaanalysis
AT catherinehill screeningforsarscov2byrtpcrsalivaornasopharyngealswabrapidreviewandmetaanalysis
AT gwenaelleteuff screeningforsarscov2byrtpcrsalivaornasopharyngealswabrapidreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jeanfrancoisrupprecht screeningforsarscov2byrtpcrsalivaornasopharyngealswabrapidreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jeanyvesthuret screeningforsarscov2byrtpcrsalivaornasopharyngealswabrapidreviewandmetaanalysis
AT danchaltiel screeningforsarscov2byrtpcrsalivaornasopharyngealswabrapidreviewandmetaanalysis
AT marieclaudepotier screeningforsarscov2byrtpcrsalivaornasopharyngealswabrapidreviewandmetaanalysis
_version_ 1721380611538550784