Abstract
Objectives Our aim was to conduct a meta-analysis on the reliability and consistency of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA detection in saliva specimens.
Methods We reported our meta-analysis according to the Cochrane Handbook. We searched the Cochrane Library, Embase, Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science and clinical trial registries for eligible studies published between 1 January and 25 April 2020. The number of positive tests and total number of conducted tests were collected as raw data. The proportion of positive tests in the pooled data were calculated by score confidence interval estimation with the Freeman-Tukey transformation. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 measure and the χ2 test.
Results The systematic search revealed 96 records after removal of duplicates. 26 records were included for qualitative analysis and 5 records for quantitative synthesis. We found 91% (95%CI = 80%-99%) sensitivity for saliva tests and 98% (95%CI 89%-100%) sensitivity for nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) tests in previously confirmed COVID-19 infected patients, with moderate heterogeneity among studies. Additionally, we identified 18 registered, ongoing clinical trials on saliva-based tests for detection of the virus.
Conclusion Saliva tests offer a promising alternative to NPS for COVID-19 diagnosis. However, further diagnostic accuracy studies are needed to improve their specificity and sensitivity.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by the Hungarian Human Resources Development Operational Program (EFOP-3.6.2-16-2017-00006). Additional support was received from an Economic Development and Innovation Operative Program Grant (GINOP 2.3.2-15- 2016-00048) and an Institutional Developments for Enhancing Intelligent Specialization Grant (EFOP-3.6.1-16-2016-00022) from the National Research, Development and Innovation Office.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This work is a meta-analysis.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author (G.V.), upon reasonable request.
