A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

The diagnostic accuracy of RT-PCR from self-collected saliva versus nasopharyngeal sampling: A systematic review and meta-analysis. | LitMetric

The diagnostic accuracy of RT-PCR from self-collected saliva versus nasopharyngeal sampling: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Saudi Med J

From the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (DH. Kim, Han, SW. Kim), Seoul Saint Mary's Hospital; from the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (Hwang), Bucheon Saint Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea, and from the Depa

Published: January 2022


Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9280554PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.15537/smj.2022.43.1.20210743DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

self-collected saliva
20
diagnostic accuracy
16
analysis diagnostic
8
diagnostic
7
self-collected
5
saliva
5
accuracy rt-pcr
4
rt-pcr self-collected
4
saliva versus
4
versus nasopharyngeal
4

Similar Publications