PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Peeters, E.
AU  - Singh, S. Kaur Dhillon Ajit
AU  - Vandesompele, J.
AU  - Mestdagh, P.
AU  - Hutse, V.
AU  - Arbyn, M.
TI  - Rapid systematic review of the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing on saliva compared to nasopharyngeal swabs
AID  - 10.1101/2020.08.05.20168716
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.08.05.20168716
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/06/2020.08.05.20168716.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/06/2020.08.05.20168716.full
AB  - Background Nasopharyngeal sampling has been the standard collection method for COVID-19 testing. Due to its invasive nature and risk of contamination for health care workers who collect the sample, non-invasive and safe sampling methods like saliva, can be used alternatively.Methods A rapid systematic search was performed in PubMed and medRxiv, with the last retrieval on June 6th, 2020. Studies were included if they compared saliva with nasopharyngeal sampling for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA using the same RT-qPCR applied on both types of samples. The primary outcome of interest was the relative sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 testing on saliva versus nasopharyngeal samples (used as the comparator test). A secondary outcome was the proportion of nasopharyngeal-positive patients that tested also positive on a saliva sample.Results Eight studies were included comprising 1070 saliva-nasopharyngeal sample pairs allowing assessment of the first outcome. The relative sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 testing on saliva versus nasopharyngeal samples was 0.97 (95% CI=0.92-1.02). The second outcome incorporated patient data (n=257) from four other studies (n=97 patients) pooled with four studies from the first outcome (n=160 patients). This resulted in a pooled proportion of nasopharyngeal positive cases that was also positive on saliva of 86% (95% CI=77-93%).Discussion Saliva could potentially be considered as an alternative sampling method when compared to nasopharyngeal swabs. However, studies included in this review often were small and involved inclusion of subjects with insufficient information on clinical covariates. Most studies included patients who were symptomatic (78%, 911/1167). Therefore, additional and larger studies should be performed to verify the relative performance of saliva in the context of screening of asymptomatic populations and contact-tracing.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo external funding was received.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Not applicableAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesData is available upon request.