Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of an RT-PCR test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva
- PMID: 39044271
- PMCID: PMC11267770
- DOI: 10.1186/s41512-024-00176-2
Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of an RT-PCR test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva
Abstract
Background and objective: Saliva has been proposed as a potential more convenient, cost-effective, and easier sample for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infections, but there is limited knowledge of the impact of saliva volumes and stages of infection on its sensitivity and specificity.
Methods: In this study, we assessed the performance of SARS-CoV-2 testing in 171 saliva samples from 52 mostly mildly symptomatic patients (aged 18 to 70 years) with a positive reference standard result at screening. The samples were collected at different volumes (50, 100, 300, and 500 µl of saliva) and at different stages of the disease (at enrollment, day 7, 14, and 28 post SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis). Imperfect nasopharyngeal (NP) swab nucleic acid amplification testing was used as a reference. We used a logistic regression with generalized estimating equations to estimate sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV, accounting for the correlation between repeated observations.
Results: The sensitivity and specificity values were consistent across saliva volumes. The sensitivity of saliva samples ranged from 70.2% (95% CI, 49.3-85.0%) for 100 μl to 81.0% (95% CI, 51.9-94.4%) for 300 μl of saliva collected. The specificity values ranged between 75.8% (95% CI, 55.0-88.9%) for 50 μl and 78.8% (95% CI, 63.2-88.9%) for 100 μl saliva compared to NP swab samples. The overall percentage of positive results in NP swabs and saliva specimens remained comparable throughout the study visits. We observed no significant difference in cycle number values between saliva and NP swab specimens, irrespective of saliva volume tested.
Conclusions: The saliva collection offers a promising approach for population-based testing.
Keywords: COVID-19; Nasopharyngeal swab; SARS-CoV-2; Saliva.
© 2024. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no competing interests.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Diagnostic Performance Assessment of Saliva RT-PCR and Nasopharyngeal Antigen for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Peru.Microbiol Spectr. 2022 Aug 31;10(4):e0086122. doi: 10.1128/spectrum.00861-22. Epub 2022 Jul 18. Microbiol Spectr. 2022. PMID: 35867471 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of Nasopharyngeal and Saliva Swab Nucleic Acid Amplification and Rapid Antigen Testing To Detect Omicron SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern: a Prospective Clinical Trial (OMICRON).Microbiol Spectr. 2022 Dec 21;10(6):e0392322. doi: 10.1128/spectrum.03923-22. Epub 2022 Nov 8. Microbiol Spectr. 2022. PMID: 36346225 Free PMC article.
-
Validation of a Saliva-Based Test for the Molecular Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection.Dis Markers. 2022 Jan 7;2022:6478434. doi: 10.1155/2022/6478434. eCollection 2022. Dis Markers. 2022. PMID: 35035611 Free PMC article.
-
Performance of Saliva, Oropharyngeal Swabs, and Nasal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.J Clin Microbiol. 2021 Apr 20;59(5):e02881-20. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02881-20. Print 2021 Apr 20. J Clin Microbiol. 2021. PMID: 33504593 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Diagnosis of SARS-Cov-2 Infection by RT-PCR Using Specimens Other Than Naso- and Oropharyngeal Swabs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 Feb 21;11(2):363. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics11020363. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021. PMID: 33670020 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- WHO. Laboratory testing for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in suspected human cases. 2020 [cited 2020 23 November]; 1–10:
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous