Abstract
While saliva is a valuable sample for non-invasive diagnosis, the usability of saliva collection devices can impact their effectiveness. To address this, we assessed five saliva collection devices for efficiency, ease of use, and leakage: Salivette (swab), SuperSAL (swab), SalivaBio Passive Drool, Medschenker Saliva Collection Kit (funnel), and a cryovial with funnel used in SwabSeq COVID-19 tests. 56 individuals used these devices in randomized orders while being timed on reading each device's instruction manual and self-collecting saliva with the device. After using each device, users reported the difficulties of instructions; assembly; and saliva collection, and whether there was leakage of saliva. Unstimulated and stimulated saliva production rates for each user were measured for normalization. The rates and difficulty ratings for devices were compared using permutation tests and one-way ANOVA. Results showed Salivette collected saliva fastest, while SuperSAL was slowest. Medschenker's funnel had the highest instruction reading rate, Salivette the lowest. Passive drool had the most leakage, and Medschenker the least. Salivette's instructions were rated the most difficult, and SwabSeq's the easiest. Medschenker was rated easiest for assembly, and SuperSAL the hardest. Salivette was easiest to collect saliva with, and SuperSAL most difficult. Overall, Medschenker performed well on most metrics while SuperSAL did not perform as well. However, no single saliva collection method or device satisfies all requirements of an ideal device. A device that allows for efficient, easy, and safe saliva collection without leakage could greatly help standardize saliva collection.
