RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Camel toe moe and Sona bag holders Results:
Overall, 37 studies were included, comprising 7,169 participants with 7,332 paired saliva samples and nasopharyngeal swabs. A total of 2,327 (32%) were positive on either nasopharyngeal swab or saliva. The sensitivity for salivary testing was overall 3.4% lower (95% confidence interval [CI], -9.9% to +3.1%) compared to the nasopharyngeal swab. The pooled sensitivity for saliva testing was 86.9% (95% CI, 82.3%-90.4%). There were no major differences in stratified analyses, with differences in sensitivity between salivary and nasopharyngeal testing ranging between -9.3% to +1.5%. Heterogeneity was high in stratified analyses. CIs for differences between salivary and nasopharyngeal testing were very wide for stratified analyses. Nasopharyngeal testing would identify 79 more persons with SARS-CoV-2 per 100,000 persons sampled. Collection of specimens by saliva compared with nasopharyngeal swab was estimated to save $636,105 (95% uncertainty interval [UI], $467,427 to $831,770) per 100,000 persons sampled.
Conclusions:
Sample collection through saliva or nasopharyngeal swabbing does not differ significantly in sensitivity. Salivary collection, however, is much less costly.