Equivalence of saliva RT-qPCR testing to nasal-throat/nasopharyngeal swab testing in the general practitioner’s setting to detect SARS-CoV-2
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Study design
Saliva has been proposed as valid alternative for nasopharyngeal swab for RT-qPCR detection of SARS-CoV-2. The sensitivity is generally equivalent, and it comes with much less discomfort for the patient. While there is an overall good performance in the literature for adults, there is much less information on the use of saliva in children or in the general practitioner’s setting.
Methods
We tested a novel commercially available saliva collection kit with a virus inactivating and RNA stabilizing buffer (InActiv Blue ® ) in matched saliva and swab samples from 245 individuals, including 216 children, collected by general practitioners.
Results
Blind RT-qPCR testing of the saliva samples confirmed all 23 positives identified by swab testing (100% concordance), irrespective of age, presence of symptoms, or high-risk status. One child’s saliva sample was found low positive while negative on the nasopharyngeal swab, resulting in an overall relative sensitivity of RT-qPCR saliva testing of 104.3%.
Conclusion
Saliva collected in InActiv Blue ® can be a valid alternative for SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR testing in the general practitioner’s setting, including children.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.09.30.21264181: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: The study was approved by the Ghent University Hospital ethics committee (B6702021000459) for parallel collection of saliva from children aged 5-16 and adults during a visit at the general practitioner (GP) during which a swab is collected for diagnostic purposes. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis Power analysis for a t-test was calculated using Piface version 1.76. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Cq values were generated using the FastFinder software v3.300.5 (UgenTec). FastFindersuggested: NoneRNA was extracted from 200 µl sample using MagMAX Viral/Pathogen II Nucleic Acid Isolation kit … SciScore for 10.1101/2021.09.30.21264181: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: The study was approved by the Ghent University Hospital ethics committee (B6702021000459) for parallel collection of saliva from children aged 5-16 and adults during a visit at the general practitioner (GP) during which a swab is collected for diagnostic purposes. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis Power analysis for a t-test was calculated using Piface version 1.76. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Cq values were generated using the FastFinder software v3.300.5 (UgenTec). FastFindersuggested: NoneRNA was extracted from 200 µl sample using MagMAX Viral/Pathogen II Nucleic Acid Isolation kit (ThermoFisher), Tecan Freedom EVO 100 liquid handler (Tecan) and KingFisher Flex (ThermoFisher). ThermoFishersuggested: (ThermoFisher; SL 8; Centrifuge, RRID:SCR_020809)An unpaired t-test (using MS Excel version 16.52) was used to compare Cq values of the spike-in RNA between saliva samples from patients who either did or not eat/drink 30 minutes prior to saliva collection, or who either did or did not rinse their mouth with water 10 minutes prior to saliva collection. MS Excelsuggested: NoneResults from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-
-