Abstract
The accepted gold standard for diagnosing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA from nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS). However, shortage of reagents has made NPS collection challenging, and alternative samples need to be explored. Due to its non-invasive nature, saliva has considerable diagnostic potential. Therefore, to guide diagnostic laboratories globally, we conducted a systematic review to determine the utility of saliva for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. A systematic search of major databases (PubMed, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar) was performed to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. There was a total of 10 publications that fit the criteria for review. Most studies collected drooled whole saliva from hospitalized patients or pipetted saliva from intubated patients. Saliva was positive in 31-92% of patients depending on the cohort and length of hospitalization. Viral loads in saliva are comparable to those in NPS and ranged from 9.9 × 102 to 1.2 × 108 copies/mL during the first week of symptoms and decrease over time. Saliva can be positive up to 20 days post-symptom onset with viral loads correlating with symptom severity and degree of tissue damage. Based on these findings, we made suggestions to guide the clinical laboratory and suggest the need for diagnostic accuracy studies for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 from saliva.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
Systematic Review
Funding Statement
No funding was used for this systematic review.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data is publically available.
