Search

• This systematic review focused on studies assessing patients for initial diagnosis. • For the first time a variety of preanalytical and analytical subgroups were analyzed. • Meta-analysis gave a pooled sensitivity of 87% and specificity of 99%. • Saliva is an easy, tolerable, and inexpensive collection method. • Further studies are needed to validate saliva for viruses other than SARS-CoV-2. Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) is the preferred method to diagnose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Saliva has been suggested as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), but previous systematic reviews were limited by the number and types of studies available. The objective of this systematic review and meta -analysis was to assess the diagnostic performance of saliva compared with NPS for COVID-19. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases up to 24 April 2021 for studies that directly compared paired NPS and saliva specimens taken at the time of diagnosis. Meta-analysis was performed using an exact binomial rendition of the bivariate mixed-effects regression model. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Of 2683 records, we included 23 studies with 25 cohorts, comprising 11,582 paired specimens. A wide variety of NAAT assays and collection methods were used. Meta-analysis gave a pooled sensitivity of 87 % (95 % CI = 83–90 %) and specificity of 99 % (95 % CI = 98–99 %). Subgroup analyses showed the highest sensitivity when the suspected individual is tested in an outpatient setting and is symptomatic. Our results support the use of saliva NAAT as an alternative to NPS NAAT for the diagnosis of COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current guideline recommends the use of two identification methods for Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF) is now used for primary identification and may be sufficient for definitive identification of N. gonorrhoeae. The performance of three secondary tests (BactiCard, RapID NH and NET test) were compared using 45 bacterial isolates, including 37 Neisseria species. These secondary tests demonstrated diminished specificity (67% - 88%) for N. gonorrhoeae compared with MALDI-TOF. Additionally, data from six clinical microbiology laboratories was used to compare confirmatory test costs and the agreement of results with MALDI-TOF. Discrepancies were documented for 9.4% of isolates, though all isolates (n= 288) identified by MALDI-TOF as N. gonorrhoeae were confirmed by the reference laboratory. These data demonstrate that MALDI-TOF alone is sufficient for N. gonorrhoeae identification, as secondary did not add diagnostic value but do add costs to the testing process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]