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...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |