The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Saliva as a Noninvasive Specimen for Detection of SARS-CoV-2
Open accessAbstract
KEYWORDS COVID-19, clinical microbiology, RT-PCR, SARS-CoV-2 D iagnostic testing for COVID-19 is central to controlling the global pandemic.Recently, To and colleagues reported that 20 of 23 (87%) patients who had SARS-CoV-2 detected by reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) in nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) or sputum also had SARS-CoV-2 detectable in saliva (1).The use of saliva has several advantages compared to collection of NPS.In particular, the close contact involved in swab collection poses a risk to health care workers, and collection of saliva may reduce this risk.Further, saliva collection does not require specialized consumables, causes less patient discomfort, and may be a useful sample for self-collection (2).We further investigated the feasibility and utility of saliva collection from ambulatory patients presenting to a dedicated COVID-19 screening clinic at the Royal Melbourne Hospital (RMH), Melbourne, Australia.Between 25 March and 1 April 2020, 622 patients were tested for COVID-19 through the screening clinic.All patients had NPS, and 522/622 (83.9%) patients also provided saliva.Patients were asked to pool saliva in their mouth for 1 to 2 min prior to collection and gently spit 1 to 2 ml of saliva into a 25-ml collection pot.Neat saliva specimens were transported to the laboratory where an approximate 1:1 ratio of liquid Amies medium was immediately added.We specifically chose to use liquid Amies medium in order to (i) evaluate the use of an alternative transport medium in the face of global shortages of viral transport medium (VTM) and (ii) to preserve VTM in our own laboratory.The median time from sample collection to addition of medium was 180 min (range, 55 to 537 min).NPS and saliva specimens underwent nucleic acid extraction on the Qiagen EZ1 platform (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany).An extraction volume of 200 l of the sample was used, with RNA eluted in 60 l.Reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) testing was performed using a multiplex RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 and other seasonal coronaviruses (coronavirus typing [8-well] assay; AusDiagnostics, Mascot, Australia).All NPS samples positive for SARS-CoV-2 underwent confirmatory testing at a local reference laboratory (the Victorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory) using previously published primers (3).Overall, 39/622 (6.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.6% to 8.5%) patients had PCR-positive NPS, and 33/39 patients (84.6%; 95% CI, 70.0% to 93.1%) had SARS-CoV-2 detected in saliva.The median cycle threshold (C T ) value was significantly lower in NPS than saliva (Fig. 1A), suggestive of higher viral loads in NPS, and in both samples, there was a correlation between C T value and days from symptom onset (Fig. 1B).To assess specificity, a subset of saliva specimens from 50 patients with PCR-negative swabs was also tested.Of note, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 1/50 (2%; 95% CI, 0.1% to 11.5%) of these saliva samples, which may reflect differing quality of NPS collection.To date, studies assessing the utility of different patient samples for the diagnosis of COVID-19 have largely been conducted on inpatients with known COVID-19 infection (1, 4).Here, we demonstrate the feasibility, acceptability, and scalability of prospectively collecting saliva from ambulatory patients in a busy screening clinic and further
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
To, K. K.-W., Tsang, O. T.-Y., Leung, W.-S., Tam, A. R., Wu, T.-C., Lung, D. C., Yip, C. C.-Y., Cai, J.-P., Chan, J. M.-C., Chik, T. S.-H., et al. (2020) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(20)30196-1 · Cited by 3,066
Ranney, M. L., Griffeth, V., & Jha, A. K. (2020) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp2006141 · Cited by 2,018
Consistent Detection of 2019 Novel Coronavirus in Saliva
To, K. K.-W., Tsang, O. T.-Y., Yip, C. C.-Y., Chan, K.-H., Wu, T.-C., Chan, J. M.-C., Leung, W.-S., Chik, T. S.-H., Choi, C. Y.-C., Kandamby, D. H., et al. (2020) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa149 · Cited by 1,873
Caly, L., Druce, J., Roberts, J., Bond, K., Tran, T., Kostecki, R., Yoga, Y., Naughton, W., Taiaroa, G., Seemann, T., et al. (2020) · Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/mja2.50569 · Cited by 305
Self-citationKim, Y., Yun, S. G., Kim, M. Y., Park, K., Cho, C. H., Yoon, S. Y., Nam, M., Lee, C. K., Cho, Y., & Lim, C. S. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Microbiology · doi:10.1128/jcm.01704-16 · Cited by 138
Cited by
Wiersinga, W. J., Rhodes, A., Cheng, A. C., Peacock, S. J., & Prescott, H. C. (2020) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2020.12839 · Cited by 4,609
Considerations for diagnostic COVID-19 tests
Vandenberg, O., Martiny, D., Rochas, O., van Belkum, A., & Kozlakidis, Z. (2021) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/s41579-020-00461-z · Cited by 803
COVID-19: Discovery, diagnostics and drug development
Asselah, T., Durantel, D., Pasmant, E., Lau, G., & Schinazi, R. F. (2021) · Journal of Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2020.09.031 · Cited by 437
Butler-Laporte, G., Lawandi, A., Schiller, I., Yao, M., Dendukuri, N., McDonald, E. G., & Lee, T. C. (2021) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.8876 · Cited by 294
Emerging Telemedicine Tools for Remote COVID-19 Diagnosis, Monitoring, and Management
Lukas, H., Xu, C., Yu, Y., & Gao, W. (2020) · ACS Nano · doi:10.1021/acsnano.0c08494 · Cited by 265
Metadata
- Authors
- Williams, E., Bond, K., Zhang, B., Putland, M., & Williamson, D. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2020-07-23
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 8
- ISSN
- 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-660X
- OpenAlex
- W3017281285
- Cited by
- 361
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 10.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Saliva as a Noninvasive Specimen for Detection of SARS-CoV-2. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.00776-20
- The paper
- Williams, E., Bond, K., Zhang, B., Putland, M., & Williamson, D. A. (2020). Saliva as a Noninvasive Specimen for Detection of SARS-CoV-2. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00776-20
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.