4.6 Article

A Community Study of SARS-CoV-2 Detection by RT-PCR in Saliva: A Reliable and Effective Method

期刊

VIRUSES-BASEL
卷 14, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/v14020313

关键词

COVID-19; saliva testing; molecular diagnosis; SARS-CoV-2 detection

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Efficient and wide-scale testing for SARS-CoV-2 is crucial for monitoring infection rates in the community. This study used a novel saliva collection device and found that saliva testing performed well in symptomatic individuals but showed a discordance in samples from convalescent subjects. It was equally effective as nasopharyngeal swabs for contact tracing in asymptomatic individuals.
Efficient, wide-scale testing for SARS-CoV-2 is crucial for monitoring the incidence of the infection in the community. The gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis is the molecular analysis of epithelial secretions from the upper respiratory system captured by nasopharyngeal (NP) or oropharyngeal swabs. Given the ease of collection, saliva has been proposed as a possible substitute to support testing at the population level. Here, we used a novel saliva collection device designed to favour the safe and correct acquisition of the sample, as well as the processivity of the downstream molecular analysis. We tested 1003 nasopharyngeal swabs and paired saliva samples self-collected by individuals recruited at a public drive-through testing facility. An overall moderate concordance (68%) between the two tests was found, with evidence that neither system can diagnose the infection in 100% of the cases. While the two methods performed equally well in symptomatic individuals, their discordance was mainly restricted to samples from convalescent subjects. The saliva test was at least as effective as NP swabs in asymptomatic individuals recruited for contact tracing. Our study describes a testing strategy of self-collected saliva samples, which is reliable for wide-scale COVID-19 screening in the community and is particularly effective for contact tracing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据