Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of an RT-PCR test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva.

Natasha Samsunder, Aida Sivro, Razia Hassan-Moosa, Lara Lewis, Zahra Kara, Cheryl Baxter, Quarraisha Abdool Karim, Salim Abdool Karim, Ayesha B M Kharsany, Kogieleum Naidoo, Sinaye Ngcapu
{"title":"Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of an RT-PCR test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva.","authors":"Natasha Samsunder, Aida Sivro, Razia Hassan-Moosa, Lara Lewis, Zahra Kara, Cheryl Baxter, Quarraisha Abdool Karim, Salim Abdool Karim, Ayesha B M Kharsany, Kogieleum Naidoo, Sinaye Ngcapu","doi":"10.1186/s41512-024-00176-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Saliva has been proposed as a potential more convenient, cost-effective, and easier sample for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infections, but there is limited knowledge of the impact of saliva volumes and stages of infection on its sensitivity and specificity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this study, we assessed the performance of SARS-CoV-2 testing in 171 saliva samples from 52 mostly mildly symptomatic patients (aged 18 to 70 years) with a positive reference standard result at screening. The samples were collected at different volumes (50, 100, 300, and 500 µl of saliva) and at different stages of the disease (at enrollment, day 7, 14, and 28 post SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis). Imperfect nasopharyngeal (NP) swab nucleic acid amplification testing was used as a reference. We used a logistic regression with generalized estimating equations to estimate sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV, accounting for the correlation between repeated observations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sensitivity and specificity values were consistent across saliva volumes. The sensitivity of saliva samples ranged from 70.2% (95% CI, 49.3-85.0%) for 100 μl to 81.0% (95% CI, 51.9-94.4%) for 300 μl of saliva collected. The specificity values ranged between 75.8% (95% CI, 55.0-88.9%) for 50 μl and 78.8% (95% CI, 63.2-88.9%) for 100 μl saliva compared to NP swab samples. The overall percentage of positive results in NP swabs and saliva specimens remained comparable throughout the study visits. We observed no significant difference in cycle number values between saliva and NP swab specimens, irrespective of saliva volume tested.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The saliva collection offers a promising approach for population-based testing.</p>","PeriodicalId":72800,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic and prognostic research","volume":"8 1","pages":"9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11267770/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic and prognostic research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41512-024-00176-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objective: Saliva has been proposed as a potential more convenient, cost-effective, and easier sample for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infections, but there is limited knowledge of the impact of saliva volumes and stages of infection on its sensitivity and specificity.

Methods: In this study, we assessed the performance of SARS-CoV-2 testing in 171 saliva samples from 52 mostly mildly symptomatic patients (aged 18 to 70 years) with a positive reference standard result at screening. The samples were collected at different volumes (50, 100, 300, and 500 µl of saliva) and at different stages of the disease (at enrollment, day 7, 14, and 28 post SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis). Imperfect nasopharyngeal (NP) swab nucleic acid amplification testing was used as a reference. We used a logistic regression with generalized estimating equations to estimate sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV, accounting for the correlation between repeated observations.

Results: The sensitivity and specificity values were consistent across saliva volumes. The sensitivity of saliva samples ranged from 70.2% (95% CI, 49.3-85.0%) for 100 μl to 81.0% (95% CI, 51.9-94.4%) for 300 μl of saliva collected. The specificity values ranged between 75.8% (95% CI, 55.0-88.9%) for 50 μl and 78.8% (95% CI, 63.2-88.9%) for 100 μl saliva compared to NP swab samples. The overall percentage of positive results in NP swabs and saliva specimens remained comparable throughout the study visits. We observed no significant difference in cycle number values between saliva and NP swab specimens, irrespective of saliva volume tested.

Conclusions: The saliva collection offers a promising approach for population-based testing.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估检测唾液中 SARS-CoV-2 的 RT-PCR 测试的诊断准确性。
背景和目的:唾液被认为是诊断 SARS-CoV-2 感染更方便、更经济、更简易的潜在样本,但人们对唾液量和感染阶段对其敏感性和特异性的影响了解有限:在这项研究中,我们对 171 份唾液样本中的 SARS-CoV-2 检测结果进行了评估,这些样本来自 52 名在筛查时参考标准结果呈阳性的轻微症状患者(年龄在 18 岁至 70 岁之间)。这些样本是在疾病的不同阶段(入院时、SARS-CoV-2 诊断后第 7 天、第 14 天和第 28 天)以不同体积(50、100、300 和 500 微升唾液)采集的。不完善的鼻咽(NP)拭子核酸扩增检测被用作参考。我们使用逻辑回归和广义估计方程来估计灵敏度、特异性、PPV 和 NPV,并考虑了重复观察之间的相关性:不同唾液量的灵敏度和特异性值是一致的。采集 100 μl 唾液样本的灵敏度为 70.2%(95% CI,49.3-85.0%),采集 300 μl 唾液样本的灵敏度为 81.0%(95% CI,51.9-94.4%)。与 NP 拭子样本相比,50 μl 唾液的特异性值介于 75.8%(95% CI,55.0-88.9%)和 100 μl 唾液的 78.8%(95% CI,63.2-88.9%)之间。在整个研究过程中,NP拭子和唾液样本中阳性结果的总体比例仍然相当。我们观察到,无论检测的唾液量多少,唾液和 NP 拭子标本的周期数值均无明显差异:结论:唾液采集为基于人群的检测提供了一种很有前景的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Risk prediction tools for pressure injury occurrence: an umbrella review of systematic reviews reporting model development and validation methods. Rehabilitation outcomes after comprehensive post-acute inpatient rehabilitation following moderate to severe acquired brain injury-study protocol for an overall prognosis study based on routinely collected health data. Validation of prognostic models predicting mortality or ICU admission in patients with COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries: a global individual participant data meta-analysis. Reported prevalence and comparison of diagnostic approaches for Candida africana: a systematic review with meta-analysis. The relative data hungriness of unpenalized and penalized logistic regression and ensemble-based machine learning methods: the case of calibration.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1