Comparing saliva and nasopharyngeal swab specimens in the detection of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
COVID-19
Meta-analysis
Nasopharyngeal swab
Saliva
Journal
Journal of dental sciences
ISSN: 2213-8862
Titre abrégé: J Dent Sci
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101293181
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2021
Jul 2021
Historique:
received:
23
11
2020
revised:
17
01
2021
pubmed:
10
2
2021
medline:
10
2
2021
entrez:
9
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Due to the easy transmission of COVID-19, the virus is a threat to global health. Early diagnosis of suspected patients will play an essential role in preventing further spread of COVID-19. The aim of this review study was to evaluate saliva specimen in comparison to nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimen in studies selected from various databases. To achieve the objective of this study, a systematic literature search was carried out in four databases, namely PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and LILACS. The keywords ″COVID-19″, ″Nasopharyngeal Swab″, and ″Saliva″ were utilized via Boolean operators. 14 articles were included in this review study following the eligibility criteria. Based on data presented in studies used in the meta-analysis, there was no significant difference between both specimen types for detection of COVID-19. Heterogeneity test showed that I With the results revealing no significant difference between the two types of specimen in the diagnosis of COVID-19, the use of saliva specimen is preferable for widespread use because it is easily collected without the need for qualified health workers. However, more in vivo studies are required in order to compare and evaluate saliva and NPS specimens in detecting COVID-19 using various techniques.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
Due to the easy transmission of COVID-19, the virus is a threat to global health. Early diagnosis of suspected patients will play an essential role in preventing further spread of COVID-19. The aim of this review study was to evaluate saliva specimen in comparison to nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimen in studies selected from various databases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
To achieve the objective of this study, a systematic literature search was carried out in four databases, namely PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and LILACS. The keywords ″COVID-19″, ″Nasopharyngeal Swab″, and ″Saliva″ were utilized via Boolean operators.
RESULTS
RESULTS
14 articles were included in this review study following the eligibility criteria. Based on data presented in studies used in the meta-analysis, there was no significant difference between both specimen types for detection of COVID-19. Heterogeneity test showed that I
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
With the results revealing no significant difference between the two types of specimen in the diagnosis of COVID-19, the use of saliva specimen is preferable for widespread use because it is easily collected without the need for qualified health workers. However, more in vivo studies are required in order to compare and evaluate saliva and NPS specimens in detecting COVID-19 using various techniques.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33558826
doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2021.01.010
pii: S1991-7902(21)00010-6
pmc: PMC7846225
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
799-805Informations de copyright
© 2021 Association for Dental Sciences of the Republic of China. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V.
Références
J Infect Public Health. 2019 Sep - Oct;12(5):601-604
pubmed: 31129010
J Clin Microbiol. 2016 Dec 28;55(1):226-233
pubmed: 27807150
N Engl J Med. 2020 Sep 24;383(13):1283-1286
pubmed: 32857487
J Infect. 2020 Jul;81(1):147-178
pubmed: 32209381
Am J Med. 2020 Nov;133(11):1280-1282
pubmed: 32492374
EBioMedicine. 2020 Sep;59:102903
pubmed: 32718896
J Med Virol. 2021 Jan;93(1):533-536
pubmed: 32621616
J Infect. 2020 Jul;81(1):e45-e50
pubmed: 32298676
Viruses. 2020 Nov 17;12(11):
pubmed: 33212817
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Jul 28;71(15):841-843
pubmed: 32047895
Eur J Dent. 2020 Dec;14(S 01):S177-S178
pubmed: 32869220
J Clin Virol. 2020 Nov;132:104652
pubmed: 33053493
J Infect. 2020 Sep;81(3):e48-e50
pubmed: 32593658
Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020 Dec;9(1):1356-1359
pubmed: 32459137
Sci Rep. 2021 Feb 24;11(1):4500
pubmed: 33627730
Clin Infect Dis. 2021 May 4;72(9):e352-e356
pubmed: 32761244
Viruses. 2020 May 26;12(6):
pubmed: 32466458
J Infect. 2020 Aug;81(2):e145-e147
pubmed: 32504740
J Korean Med Sci. 2020 May 25;35(20):e195
pubmed: 32449329
Braz J Infect Dis. 2020 Sep - Oct;24(5):422-427
pubmed: 32888905
J Clin Virol. 2020 Sep;130:104567
pubmed: 32750665
BMJ. 2020 May 12;369:m1808
pubmed: 32398230
Emerg Infect Dis. 2004 Jul;10(7):1213-9
pubmed: 15324540
Front Med (Lausanne). 2020 Aug 04;7:465
pubmed: 32903849
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Jul 23;58(8):
pubmed: 32317257
Infect Dis Poverty. 2020 Jul 22;9(1):100
pubmed: 32698862
Infect Drug Resist. 2020 Oct 01;13:3393-3399
pubmed: 33061486
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021 Feb;27(2):285.e1-285.e4
pubmed: 32422408
BMC Infect Dis. 2018 Dec 29;18(1):707
pubmed: 30594124
J Med Virol. 2021 Feb;93(2):719-725
pubmed: 32706393
J Infect Chemother. 2021 Jan;27(1):126-129
pubmed: 33060046
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Oct 21;58(11):
pubmed: 32883744
Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Mar 15;72(6):1064-1066
pubmed: 32584972
J Pediatr (Rio J). 2021 Jan-Feb;97(1):7-12
pubmed: 32882235
Biol Proced Online. 2020 Aug 4;22:19
pubmed: 32774178