Saliva as an alternative to blood in the determination of uremic state in adult patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

To assess whether salivary urea and creatinine levels accurately reflect their serum levels in blood samples of adults to detect chronic kidney disease. A systematic review was conducted in eight electronic databases. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO. Only diagnostic test studies were included. The JBI critical appraisal tools assessed the risk of bias. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed. The GRADE tool assessed the quality of evidence and strength of recommendation across the studies included. Eight studies met the eligibility criteria and were included. Six studies assessed salivary urea, and six studies assessed salivary creatinine. All studies presented moderate risk of bias. The meta-analysis depicted an overall sensitivity of 93.3% (95% CI = 88.6; 97.9) for salivary creatinine levels and 87.5% (95% CI = 83.2; 91.8) for salivary urea levels, while the overall specificity was 87.1% (95% CI = 82.8; 91.3) and 83.2% (95% CI = 65.0; 101.4) for salivary creatinine and urea levels, respectively. The overall accuracy of salivary creatinine was 5.2 percentage points higher compared with salivary urea levels (90.8% vs. 85.6%). According to the GRADE tool, the analysed outcomes were classified as having low tomoderate level of certainty. Compared with blood samples, salivary urea and creatinine levels presented high diagnostic values for chronic kidney disease screening, but should not be considered equivalent to levels obtained from blood at stages three, four, or five of the disease. Chronic kidney disease patients could receive a clinically significant benefit from replacing blood with saliva for potentially monitoring renal function. Saliva collection presents greater simplicity, comfort, safety, and lower collection cost.