Sara Mohammed Ahmed Rady

Congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a major cause of neonatal morbidity, particularly sensorineural hearing loss, yet its early detection remains challenging. While urinary PCR is the current diagnostic gold standard, its implementation in neonatal settings is often limited by feasibility issues. Salivary PCR presents a more practical alternative, but its diagnostic accuracy has remained uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of salivary PCR compared to urinary PCR in detecting congenital CMV in neonates. Following PRISMA guidelines, 15 observational studies involving 29,617 neonates were analyzed using a random-effects model. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.99 and 1.00, respectively, with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 1.00 and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.91, despite moderate heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis showed high diagnostic performance across general neonates, infants of seropositive mothers and high-risk neonates (referring to neonates that are small for their gestational age (SGA), neonates who failed hearing screening, and neonates with CMV-related congenital abnormalities). The general group had the highest specificity (0.999), while high-risk neonates showed the highest sensitivity (0.981). Across all groups, NPV remained consistently above 0.994, with PPV ranging from 0.848 to 0.981. These findings confirm that salivary PCR is a highly accurate and feasible tool for congenital CMV diagnosis.

Since the World Health Organization (WHO) issued guidelines for developing a non-sputum test for active tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis that exhibits similar performance characteristics to sputum-based diagnosis, salivary diagnostic techniques have gained prominence as potential screening tools or adjuncts to existing diagnostics. We searched online databases for studies that looked at salivary diagnostic techniques. Afterwards, duplicates were removed, titles and abstracts were screened, and full-text studies were assessed for eligibility based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The studies chosen for final analysis underwent a rigorous quality assessment following a QUADAS-2 template, and data were extracted. The primary outcome assessed the difference in mean levels of interleukins between TB+ patients and TB-controls (Hedges’ g). We then conducted two subgroup analyses: the first segregated the control group into healthy patients, and those with other respiratory diseases (ORD), and the second addressed three different interleukins separately (IL-6, IL-5, IL-17). The secondary outcome involved comparing salivary molecular diagnostic assays to WHO guidelines. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42024536884. A total of 17 studies, out of an initial 1010, were chosen for the final analysis, but one was then excluded for being of poor quality. Our meta-analyses for the primary outcome revealed minimal diagnostic potential for interleukins. Our first subgroup analysis showed that interleukins were incapable of differentiating active TB patients from both healthy controls and ORD patients. Our second subgroup analysis showed that IL-17 was reduced in active TB patients. Assessment of the secondary outcome revealed that most studies relied on a GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay on saliva, but none fulfilled WHO guidelines for a non-sputum test. Individual biomarkers currently lack sufficient discriminatory power to definitively distinguish active tuberculosis from healthy individuals or those with other respiratory diseases (ORD), reinforcing the need for multi-biomarker panels. Interleukins may be alternatively used as markers for prognosis, severity, or treatment response. Our findings also suggest that assays are unable to meet WHO guidelines.