Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2022 Jul 23;12(1):12612.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-16849-1.

Saliva as alternative to naso-oropharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-qPCR: a multicenter cross-sectional diagnostic validation study

Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Saliva as alternative to naso-oropharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-qPCR: a multicenter cross-sectional diagnostic validation study

Michael L Tee et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

Saliva has been demonstrated as feasible alternative to naso-oropharyngeal swab (NOS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection through reverse transcription quantitative/real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). This study compared the diagnostic agreement of conventional NOS, saliva with RNA extraction (SE) and saliva without RNA extraction (SalivaDirect) processing for RT-qPCR in identifying SARS-CoV-2. All techniques were also compared, as separate index tests, to a composite reference standard (CRS) where positive and negative results were defined as SARS-CoV-2 detection in either one or no sample, respectively. Of 517 paired samples, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 150 (29.01%) NOS and 151 (29.21%) saliva specimens. The saliva-based tests were noted to have a sensitivity, specificity and accuracy (95% confidence interval) of 92.67% (87.26%, 96.28%), 97.55% (95.40%, 98.87%) and 96.13% (94.09%, 97.62%), respectively, for SE RT-qPCR and 91.33% (85.64%, 95.30%), 98.91% (97.23%, 99.70%) and 96.71% (94.79%, 98.07%), respectively, for SalivaDirect RT-qPCR compared to NOS RT-qPCR. Compared to CRS, all platforms demonstrated statistically similar diagnostic performance. These findings suggest that both conventional and streamlined saliva RT-qPCR are at least non-inferior to conventional NOS RT-qPCR in detecting SARS-CoV-2.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

This endeavor was financially and logistically supported by Mount Grace Hospitals, Inc. which had no role in the design of the investigation and in the analysis of the results. Dr. Vivencio Jose P. Villaflor III is a member of the board of directors of Dagupan Doctors Villaflor Memorial Hospital. The proprietary instruments and materials used in this investigation are commonly and routinely utilized in our area of research and country, and the manufacturer of these products was not involved in any direct or indirect manner in the conduct of this research.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of participants in the study. NOS naso-oropharyngeal swab, RT-qPCR reverse transcription quantitative/real-time polymerase chain reaction, SARS-CoV-2 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, SE saliva with RNA extraction.
Figure 2
Figure 2
RT-qPCR Cq values from NOS, SE and SalivaDirect sample trios among study volunteers with positive reading on at least one test (n = 160). Cq quantification cycle, E envelope, IQR interquartile range, N nucleocapsid, NOS naso-oropharyngeal swab, RdRp RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, RT-qPCR reverse transcription quantitative/real-time polymerase chain reaction, SE saliva with RNA extraction. *Through Skillings-Mack test. Through Wilcoxon signed-rank test with Bonferroni correction (adjusted threshold for statistical significance: pcorrected ≤ .0167).

References

    1. Cheng MP, et al. Diagnostic testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome—related coronavirus 2: A narrative review. Ann. Intern. Med. 2020;172:726–734. doi: 10.7326/M20-1301. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sethuraman N, Jeremiah SS, Ryo A. Interpreting diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2. JAMA. 2020;323:2249–2251. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.8259. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Esbin MN, et al. Overcoming the bottleneck to widespread testing: A rapid review of nucleic acid testing approaches for COVID-19 detection. RNA. 2020;26:771–783. doi: 10.1261/rna.076232.120. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Qian Y, et al. Safety management of nasopharyngeal specimen collection from suspected cases of coronavirus disease 2019. Int. J. Nurs. Sci. 2020;7:153–156. - PMC - PubMed
    1. COVID-19 Tracker. Department of Health (Philippines). https://www.doh.gov.ph/covid19tracker (2022).

Publication types