YaBeSH Engineering and Technology Library

    • Journals
    • PaperQuest
    • YSE Standards
    • YaBeSH
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASME
    • Journal of Medical Devices
    • View Item
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASME
    • Journal of Medical Devices
    • View Item
    • All Fields
    • Source Title
    • Year
    • Publisher
    • Title
    • Subject
    • Author
    • DOI
    • ISBN
    Advanced Search
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Archive

    Comparative Survey-Based Study of Noninvasive Saliva Collection Devices

    Source: Journal of Medical Devices:;2024:;volume( 019 ):;issue: 002::page 24501-1
    Author:
    Kil, Yeokyoung (Anne)
    ,
    Booeshaghi, Ali S.
    ,
    Pachter, Lior S.
    DOI: 10.1115/1.4067232
    Publisher: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
    Abstract: While saliva is a valuable sample for noninvasive diagnosis, the usability of saliva collection devices can impact its effectiveness in diagnostics. To address this, we evaluated five saliva collection devices: Salivette (swab), SuperSAL (swab), SalivaBio Passive Drool, Medschenker Saliva Collection Kit (funnel), and a cryovial with funnel used in SwabSeq coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2) tests. Saliva collection rates and instruction reading rates for each device were measured for 60 healthy adults. Users then reported the difficulties of instructions, assembly, and saliva collection, and whether there was leakage of saliva through a survey. Unstimulated saliva production (=flow) rates and base reading rates for each user were measured for normalization. Device metrics were compared using permutation tests and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Salivette collected saliva easily and most quickly, while SuperSAL's collection was slower and rated difficult by users. Medschenker had high instruction reading rates and the lowest leakage rate. Users found the SwabSeq funnel and Passive drool's instructions easy, but found the devices themselves not easy to collect saliva with. Overall, Medschenker performed well on most metrics, while SuperSAL did not perform as well. Our results show that no single saliva collection device satisfies all requirements of an ideal device: a device that allows for efficient, easy, and safe saliva collection without leakage. With the findings from our study, we aim to guide researchers and clinicians in choosing the appropriate saliva collection device in their practices and to motivate the design of an ideal saliva collection device.
    • Download: (1.301Mb)
    • Show Full MetaData Hide Full MetaData
    • Get RIS
    • Item Order
    • Go To Publisher
    • Price: 5000 Rial
    • Statistics

      Comparative Survey-Based Study of Noninvasive Saliva Collection Devices

    URI
    http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4305476
    Collections
    • Journal of Medical Devices

    Show full item record

    contributor authorKil, Yeokyoung (Anne)
    contributor authorBooeshaghi, Ali S.
    contributor authorPachter, Lior S.
    date accessioned2025-04-21T10:05:23Z
    date available2025-04-21T10:05:23Z
    date copyright12/11/2024 12:00:00 AM
    date issued2024
    identifier issn1932-6181
    identifier othermed_019_02_024501.pdf
    identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4305476
    description abstractWhile saliva is a valuable sample for noninvasive diagnosis, the usability of saliva collection devices can impact its effectiveness in diagnostics. To address this, we evaluated five saliva collection devices: Salivette (swab), SuperSAL (swab), SalivaBio Passive Drool, Medschenker Saliva Collection Kit (funnel), and a cryovial with funnel used in SwabSeq coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2) tests. Saliva collection rates and instruction reading rates for each device were measured for 60 healthy adults. Users then reported the difficulties of instructions, assembly, and saliva collection, and whether there was leakage of saliva through a survey. Unstimulated saliva production (=flow) rates and base reading rates for each user were measured for normalization. Device metrics were compared using permutation tests and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Salivette collected saliva easily and most quickly, while SuperSAL's collection was slower and rated difficult by users. Medschenker had high instruction reading rates and the lowest leakage rate. Users found the SwabSeq funnel and Passive drool's instructions easy, but found the devices themselves not easy to collect saliva with. Overall, Medschenker performed well on most metrics, while SuperSAL did not perform as well. Our results show that no single saliva collection device satisfies all requirements of an ideal device: a device that allows for efficient, easy, and safe saliva collection without leakage. With the findings from our study, we aim to guide researchers and clinicians in choosing the appropriate saliva collection device in their practices and to motivate the design of an ideal saliva collection device.
    publisherThe American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
    titleComparative Survey-Based Study of Noninvasive Saliva Collection Devices
    typeJournal Paper
    journal volume19
    journal issue2
    journal titleJournal of Medical Devices
    identifier doi10.1115/1.4067232
    journal fristpage24501-1
    journal lastpage24501-7
    page7
    treeJournal of Medical Devices:;2024:;volume( 019 ):;issue: 002
    contenttypeFulltext
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian
     
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian