Comparing SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load in Human Saliva to Oropharyngeal Swabs, Nasopharyngeal Swabs, and Sputum: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Table 1

PRISMA checklist.

Section/topic	Item #	Checklist item
Administrative information
Title
Identification	1a	Identify the report as a protocol of a systematic review
Update	1b	If the protocol is for an update of a previous systematic review, identify as such
Registration	2	If registered, provide the name of the registry (e.g., PROSPERO) and registration number
Authors
Contact	3a	Provide name, institutional affiliation, and e-mail address of all protocol authors and provide physical mailing address of the corresponding author
Contributions	3b	Describe contributions of protocol authors and identify the guarantor of the review
Amendments	4	If the protocol represents an amendment of a previously completed or published protocol, identify as such and list changes; otherwise, state plan for documenting important protocol amendments
Support
Sources	5a	Indicate sources of financial or other support for the review
Sponsor	5b	Provide name for the review funder and/or sponsor
Role of sponsor/funder	5c	Describe roles of funder(s), sponsor(s), and/or institution(s), if any, in developing the protocol
Introduction
Rationale	6	Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known
Objectives	7	Provide an explicit statement of the question(s) the review will address with reference to participants, interventions, comparators, and outcomes (PICO)
Methods
Eligibility criteria	8	Specify the study characteristics (e.g., PICO, study design, setting, and time frame) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, and publication status) to be used as criteria for eligibility for the review
Information sources	9	Describe all intended information sources (e.g., electronic databases, contact with study authors, trial registers, or other grey literature sources) with planned dates of coverage
Search strategy	10	Present draft of search strategy to be used for at least one electronic database, including planned limits, such that it could be repeated
Study records
Data management	11a	Describe the mechanism(s) that will be used to manage records and data throughout the review
Selection process	11b	State the process that will be used for selecting studies (e.g., two independent reviewers) through each phase of the review (i.e., screening, eligibility, and inclusion in meta-analysis)
Data collection process	11c	Describe the planned method of extracting data from reports (e.g., piloting forms, done independently, and in duplicate), any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators
Data items	12	List and define all variables for which data will be sought (e.g., PICO items and funding sources), any preplanned data assumptions and simplifications
Outcomes and prioritization	13	List and define all outcomes for which data will be sought, including prioritization of main and additional outcomes, with rationale
Risk of bias in individual studies	14	Describe anticipated methods for assessing risk of bias of individual studies, including whether this will be done at the outcome or study level, or both; state how this information will be used in data synthesis
Data
Synthesis	15a	Describe criteria under which study data will be quantitatively synthesized
	15b	If data are appropriate for quantitative synthesis, describe planned summary measures, methods of handling data, and methods of combining data from studies, including any planned exploration of consistency (e.g., I^2 and Kendall’s tau)
	15c	Describe any proposed additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analysis and meta-regression)
	15d	If quantitative synthesis is not appropriate, describe the type of summary planned
Metabias(es)	16	Specify any planned assessment of metabias(es) (e.g., publication bias across studies and selective reporting within studies)
Confidence in cumulative evidence	17	Describe how the strength of the body of evidence will be assessed (e.g., GRADE)