©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Nephrol. Sep 25, 2025; 14(3): 108406
Published online Sep 25, 2025. doi: 10.5527/wjn.v14.i3.108406
Published online Sep 25, 2025. doi: 10.5527/wjn.v14.i3.108406
Table 1 Comparison of saliva collection methods based on biomarker reliability, feasibility, and limitations
| Collection method | Biomarker reliability | Feasibility | Major limitations |
| Spitting | High | Easy and patient-friendly | Inconsistent flow, variable technique |
| Passive drool | Moderate to high | Non-invasive, simple | Slow collection, risk of evaporation |
| Stimulated (paraffin chewing) | Moderate (flow-dependent dilution) | Simple, cost-effective | Contamination risk, requires compliance, time-sensitive processing |
| Stimulated (parotid) | Variable, biomarker-specific | Targeted gland sampling | Invasive, discomfort, specialized equipment needed |
| Oral rinse | Low (due to dilution) | Very easy and rapid | Dilution effect, unreliable concentrations |
| Salivette® | Moderate | Standardized device available | Absorption variability, potential contamination |
- Citation: Abu Raihan Uddin M, Tuan Ismail TS, Wan Nik WNFH, Arifin WN, Isa S. Saliva as a non-invasive biomarker for chronic kidney disease: Challenges and potential in disease monitoring. World J Nephrol 2025; 14(3): 108406
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2220-6124/full/v14/i3/108406.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5527/wjn.v14.i3.108406