S'abonner

Are saliva and deep throat sputum as reliable as common respiratory specimens for SARS-CoV-2 detection? A systematic review and meta-analysis - 26/08/21

Doi : 10.1016/j.ajic.2021.03.008 
Kazem Khiabani, DMD, OMFS a, , Mohammad Hosein Amirzade-Iranaq, DDS b, c
a Department of Oral and Maxillofacial surgery, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran 
b Department of Research, Arka Education and Clinical Research Consultants, Tehran, Iran 
c Universal Network of Interdisciplinary Research in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (UNIROMS), Universal Scientific Education and Research Network (USERN), Tehran, Iran 

Address correspondence to Kazem Khiabani, DMD, OMFS, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial surgery, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial surgeryAhvaz Jundishapur University of Medical SciencesAhvazIran

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
Article gratuit.

Connectez-vous pour en bénéficier!

Highlights

Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, double naso/oropharyngeal swabs, nasopharyngeal swab(NPS), saliva, deep throat sputum(DTS) showed the highest sensitivity, respectively.
Saliva, DTS, and NPS showed approximately similar results.
Oropharyngeal specimen is the most unreliable respiratory sample.
Viral load and disease severity, and test sensitivity are directly related.
Viral load and test sensitivity are significantly lower, and viral clearance is significantly faster in asymptomatic patients than in symptomatic individuals.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Graphical Abstract




Image, graphical abstract

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Résumé

Objective

The COVID-19 pandemic raises an urgent need for large-scale control through easier, cheaper, and safer diagnostic specimens, including saliva and sputum. We aimed to conduct a systemic review and meta-analysis on the reliability and sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 detection in saliva and deep throat sputum (DTS) compared to nasopharyngeal, combined naso/oropharyngeal, and oropharyngeal swabs.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA statement. The inclusion criteria were studies that specifically assessed a sample of saliva or DTS with at least one other respiratory specimen in patients with COVID-19 infection, based on RT-PCR tests. The DerSimonian-Laird bivariate random-effects model analysis performed using STATA software with the "metaprop" package.

Results

From 1598 studies, we retrieved 33 records, of which 26 studies were included for quantitative analysis. We found an overall sensitivity of 97% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86-100) for bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, 92% (95% CI, 80-99) for double naso/oropharyngeal swabs, 87% (95% CI, 77-95) for nasopharyngeal swabs, 83% (95% CI, 77-89) for saliva, 82% (95% CI, 76-88) for DTS, and 44% (95% CI, 35-52) for oropharyngeal swabs among symptomatic patients, respectively. Regardless of the type of specimens, the viral load and sensitivity in the severe patients were higher than mild and in the symptomatic patients higher than asymptomatic cases.

Conclusions

The present review provides evidence for the diagnostic value of different respiratory specimens and supports saliva and DTS as promising diagnostic tools for first-line screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, the methods of sampling, storing, and laboratory assay need to be optimized and validated before introducing as a definitive diagnosis tool. Saliva, DTS, and nasopharyngeal swab showed approximately similar results, and sensitivity was directly related to the disease severity. This review revealed a relationship between viral load, disease severity, and test sensitivity. None of the specimens showed appropriate diagnostic sensitivity for asymptomatic patients.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Key Words : COVID-19, Sputum, Nasopharyngeal swab, Oropharyngeal swab, Sensitivity, RT-PCR diagnostic test


Plan


 Conflicts of interest: None to declare.


© 2021  Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc.. Publié par Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 49 - N° 9

P. 1165-1176 - septembre 2021 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Methodology minute: A statistical test primer for infection prevention and control
  • Timothy L. Wiemken, Samson L. Niemotka, Christopher Prener
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Infection prevention practices and the use of medical tapes
  • Stéphanie F. Bernatchez, Kimberly Schommer

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.