RT-qPCR assays based on saliva rather than on nasopharyngeal swabs are possible but should be interpreted with caution: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Journal
Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis
ISSN: 2531-6745
Titre abrégé: Acta Biomed
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 101295064
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 09 2020
07 09 2020
Historique:
received:
09
06
2020
accepted:
11
06
2020
entrez:
14
9
2020
pubmed:
15
9
2020
medline:
23
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The ongoing pandemic has elicited an increasing interest regarding the SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA detection in saliva specimens rather than through nasopharyngeal swabs. Our aim was to conduct a meta-analysis on the sensitivity and specificity of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA detection through RT-qPCR based on salivary specimens compared to conventional nasopharyngeal swabs. We reported our meta-analysis according to the PRISMA statement. We searched Pubmed, Embase, and pre-print archive medRxiv.og for eligible studies published up to June 1st, 2020. Raw data included true/false positive and negative tests, and the total number of tests. Sensitivity and specificity data were calculated for every study, and then pooled in a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 measure. Reporting bias was assessed by means of funnel plots and regression analysis. The systematic review eventually retrieved 14 studies including a total of 15 estimates, the were included in quantitative synthesis. We found a pooled specificity of 97.7% (95%CI 93.8-99.2) and a pooled sensitivity of 83.4% (95%CI 73.1-90.4), with an overall agreement assessed by means of Cohen's kappa equals to 0.750, 95%CI 0.62-0.88 (i.e. moderate agreement), with high heterogeneity and risk of reporting bias. In conclusion, diagnostic tests based on salivary specimens are somewhat reliable, but relatively few studies have been carried out. Moreover, such studies are characterized by low numbers and low sample power. Therefore, the of salivary samples is currently questionable for clinical purposes and cannot substitute other more conventional RT-qPCR based on nasopharyngeal swabs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE WORK
The ongoing pandemic has elicited an increasing interest regarding the SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA detection in saliva specimens rather than through nasopharyngeal swabs. Our aim was to conduct a meta-analysis on the sensitivity and specificity of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA detection through RT-qPCR based on salivary specimens compared to conventional nasopharyngeal swabs.
METHODS
We reported our meta-analysis according to the PRISMA statement. We searched Pubmed, Embase, and pre-print archive medRxiv.og for eligible studies published up to June 1st, 2020. Raw data included true/false positive and negative tests, and the total number of tests. Sensitivity and specificity data were calculated for every study, and then pooled in a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 measure. Reporting bias was assessed by means of funnel plots and regression analysis.
RESULTS
The systematic review eventually retrieved 14 studies including a total of 15 estimates, the were included in quantitative synthesis. We found a pooled specificity of 97.7% (95%CI 93.8-99.2) and a pooled sensitivity of 83.4% (95%CI 73.1-90.4), with an overall agreement assessed by means of Cohen's kappa equals to 0.750, 95%CI 0.62-0.88 (i.e. moderate agreement), with high heterogeneity and risk of reporting bias.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, diagnostic tests based on salivary specimens are somewhat reliable, but relatively few studies have been carried out. Moreover, such studies are characterized by low numbers and low sample power. Therefore, the of salivary samples is currently questionable for clinical purposes and cannot substitute other more conventional RT-qPCR based on nasopharyngeal swabs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32921721
doi: 10.23750/abm.v91i3.10020
pmc: PMC7717018
doi:
Substances chimiques
RNA, Viral
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2020025Références
J Clin Med. 2020 May 15;9(5):
pubmed: 32429101
N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 26;382(13):1199-1207
pubmed: 31995857
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
JAMA. 2020 Mar 17;323(11):1061-1069
pubmed: 32031570
J Infect. 2020 Aug;81(2):e145-e147
pubmed: 32504740
J Infect. 2020 Jul;81(1):147-178
pubmed: 32209381
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Jun 25;:
pubmed: 32584972
Autoimmun Rev. 2012 Dec;12(2):97-106
pubmed: 22810055
Int J Oral Sci. 2020 Apr 17;12(1):11
pubmed: 32300101
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Oct 19;:
pubmed: 33075138
Acta Biomed. 2020 May 11;91(2):57-67
pubmed: 32420926
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020 May 15;:
pubmed: 32422408
J Pathol. 2020 Jul;251(3):228-248
pubmed: 32418199
Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020 Dec;9(1):1356-1359
pubmed: 32459137
Cureus. 2020 Apr 17;12(4):e7708
pubmed: 32313785
N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 6;383(6):e38
pubmed: 32502334
J Clin Med. 2020 May 18;9(5):
pubmed: 32443459
Emerg Infect Dis. 2004 Jul;10(7):1213-9
pubmed: 15324540
Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 Apr 05;10(4):
pubmed: 32260471
Front Med (Lausanne). 2020 Aug 04;7:465
pubmed: 32903849
J Med Virol. 2020 Oct;92(10):1724-1727
pubmed: 32227490
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Jul 23;58(8):
pubmed: 32317257
Euro Surveill. 2020 Mar;25(12):
pubmed: 32234115
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Jul 23;58(8):
pubmed: 32414838
Acta Biomed. 2020 May 11;91(2):137-145
pubmed: 32420937
Oral Dis. 2020 Apr 25;:
pubmed: 32333518
Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):497-506
pubmed: 31986264
Stat Methods Med Res. 2020 Apr;29(4):1049-1050
pubmed: 32338180
J Infect. 2020 Jul;81(1):e45-e50
pubmed: 32298676
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 May;20(5):565-574
pubmed: 32213337
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Mar 26;17(7):
pubmed: 32224986
Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jul 7;173(1):79
pubmed: 32479106
J Virol. 2011 Apr;85(8):4025-30
pubmed: 21289121
Eur Respir J. 2020 May 14;55(5):
pubmed: 32217650