Cargando…
The diagnostic accuracy of RT-PCR from self-collected saliva versus nasopharyngeal sampling: A systematic review and meta-analysis
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic utility of self-collected saliva in coronavirus desease-19 (COVID-19) screening procedures. METHODS: A total of 6 databases were reviewed from their inception until August 2021. Sensitivity and specificity were measured by extracting items (true-positive, true-...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Saudi Medical Journal
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9280554/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35022280 http://dx.doi.org/10.15537/smj.2022.43.1.20210743 |
_version_ | 1784746673162944512 |
---|---|
author | Kim, Do Hyun Basurrah, Mohammed A. Han, Jae Hong Kim, Sung Won Hwang, Se Hwan |
author_facet | Kim, Do Hyun Basurrah, Mohammed A. Han, Jae Hong Kim, Sung Won Hwang, Se Hwan |
author_sort | Kim, Do Hyun |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic utility of self-collected saliva in coronavirus desease-19 (COVID-19) screening procedures. METHODS: A total of 6 databases were reviewed from their inception until August 2021. Sensitivity and specificity were measured by extracting items (true-positive, true-negative, false-positive and false-negative) from each paper. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy based on Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, version 2. RESULTS: A total of 41 studies were included in the final analysis. The diagnostic odds ratio (OR) of self-collected saliva was 196.2022 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 117.8833-326.5546). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.955. For detecting COVID-19, self-collected saliva had a moderate sensitivity of 0.8476 [0.8045-0.8826] and positive predictive value of 0.9404 [0.9122-0.9599] but high specificity of 0.9817 [0.9707-0.9887] and negative predictive value of 0.9467 [0.9130-0.9678]. In a subgroup analysis, the diagnostic accuracy of self-collected saliva tended to be higher for symptomatic (vs. asymptomatic) examinees. CONCLUSION: Although naso/oropharyngeal swab tests are the most accurate and important diagnostic tools, the saliva-based testing method can be used as a suitable alternative test, with the advantages of increased patient convenience, efficient testing, and the need for fewer medical staff and resources. In particular, simple collecting method such as drooling or spitting without coughing would be effective in evaluating the symptomatic patients. PROSPERO no.: CRD42021279287 |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9280554 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Saudi Medical Journal |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92805542022-07-20 The diagnostic accuracy of RT-PCR from self-collected saliva versus nasopharyngeal sampling: A systematic review and meta-analysis Kim, Do Hyun Basurrah, Mohammed A. Han, Jae Hong Kim, Sung Won Hwang, Se Hwan Saudi Med J Systematic Review OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic utility of self-collected saliva in coronavirus desease-19 (COVID-19) screening procedures. METHODS: A total of 6 databases were reviewed from their inception until August 2021. Sensitivity and specificity were measured by extracting items (true-positive, true-negative, false-positive and false-negative) from each paper. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy based on Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, version 2. RESULTS: A total of 41 studies were included in the final analysis. The diagnostic odds ratio (OR) of self-collected saliva was 196.2022 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 117.8833-326.5546). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.955. For detecting COVID-19, self-collected saliva had a moderate sensitivity of 0.8476 [0.8045-0.8826] and positive predictive value of 0.9404 [0.9122-0.9599] but high specificity of 0.9817 [0.9707-0.9887] and negative predictive value of 0.9467 [0.9130-0.9678]. In a subgroup analysis, the diagnostic accuracy of self-collected saliva tended to be higher for symptomatic (vs. asymptomatic) examinees. CONCLUSION: Although naso/oropharyngeal swab tests are the most accurate and important diagnostic tools, the saliva-based testing method can be used as a suitable alternative test, with the advantages of increased patient convenience, efficient testing, and the need for fewer medical staff and resources. In particular, simple collecting method such as drooling or spitting without coughing would be effective in evaluating the symptomatic patients. PROSPERO no.: CRD42021279287 Saudi Medical Journal 2022-01 /pmc/articles/PMC9280554/ /pubmed/35022280 http://dx.doi.org/10.15537/smj.2022.43.1.20210743 Text en Copyright: © Saudi Medical Journal https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access journal and articles published are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (CC BY-NC). Readers may copy, distribute, and display the work for non-commercial purposes with the proper citation of the original work. |
spellingShingle | Systematic Review Kim, Do Hyun Basurrah, Mohammed A. Han, Jae Hong Kim, Sung Won Hwang, Se Hwan The diagnostic accuracy of RT-PCR from self-collected saliva versus nasopharyngeal sampling: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | The diagnostic accuracy of RT-PCR from self-collected saliva versus nasopharyngeal sampling: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | The diagnostic accuracy of RT-PCR from self-collected saliva versus nasopharyngeal sampling: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | The diagnostic accuracy of RT-PCR from self-collected saliva versus nasopharyngeal sampling: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | The diagnostic accuracy of RT-PCR from self-collected saliva versus nasopharyngeal sampling: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | The diagnostic accuracy of RT-PCR from self-collected saliva versus nasopharyngeal sampling: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | diagnostic accuracy of rt-pcr from self-collected saliva versus nasopharyngeal sampling: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Systematic Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9280554/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35022280 http://dx.doi.org/10.15537/smj.2022.43.1.20210743 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kimdohyun thediagnosticaccuracyofrtpcrfromselfcollectedsalivaversusnasopharyngealsamplingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT basurrahmohammeda thediagnosticaccuracyofrtpcrfromselfcollectedsalivaversusnasopharyngealsamplingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT hanjaehong thediagnosticaccuracyofrtpcrfromselfcollectedsalivaversusnasopharyngealsamplingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT kimsungwon thediagnosticaccuracyofrtpcrfromselfcollectedsalivaversusnasopharyngealsamplingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT hwangsehwan thediagnosticaccuracyofrtpcrfromselfcollectedsalivaversusnasopharyngealsamplingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT kimdohyun diagnosticaccuracyofrtpcrfromselfcollectedsalivaversusnasopharyngealsamplingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT basurrahmohammeda diagnosticaccuracyofrtpcrfromselfcollectedsalivaversusnasopharyngealsamplingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT hanjaehong diagnosticaccuracyofrtpcrfromselfcollectedsalivaversusnasopharyngealsamplingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT kimsungwon diagnosticaccuracyofrtpcrfromselfcollectedsalivaversusnasopharyngealsamplingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT hwangsehwan diagnosticaccuracyofrtpcrfromselfcollectedsalivaversusnasopharyngealsamplingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |