DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: This study has analysed 417 publications from the Scopus database on collective leadership from 1967 to 2023. Data were analysed using MS Excel and VOSviewer.
FINDINGS: There has been research from different parts of the world on the various aspects of collective leadership. In recent years, collective leadership research has gained momentum. However, collective leadership is still at a nascent level when it comes to the applicability of the concepts. So far, the research on collective leadership has relied on themes such as shared leadership and distributed leadership, how collective leadership differs from other similar-looking leadership styles such as transformational leadership, and how this influences followers' outcomes such as team effectiveness, achievements, relations, commitment, etc. Most of the research so far has been done in the United States of America, the UK and the Australian context. There exists a huge gap for studying collective leadership in African, Middle Eastern and Asian contexts.
RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Collective leadership research trends may be addressed to enable academics and practitioners to better understand current and future trends and research directions. Future studies in this field might use the findings as a starting point to highlight the nature of the topic.
ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Bibliometric techniques provide a far more comprehensive and reliable picture of the field. This article has the potential to serve as a one-stop resource for researchers and practitioners seeking information that can aid in transdisciplinary endeavours by leading them to recognized, peer-reviewed papers, journals and networks.
METHODS: We recruited 81 travelers and 15 non-travelers (including ten controls) prospectively within a mean of 3·22 days of RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19. Each study participant provided 2 mls of early morning fresh drooled whole saliva separately into a sterile plastic container and GeneFiX™ saliva collection kit. The saliva specimens were processed within 4 h and tested for SARS-CoV-2 genes (E, RdRP, and N2) and the results compared to paired NPS RT-PCR for diagnostic accuracy.
RESULTS: Majority of travellers were asymptomatic (75·0%) with a mean age of 34·26 years. 77 travelers were RT-PCR positive at the time of hospitalization whilst three travelers had positive contacts. In this group, the detection rate for SARS-CoV-2 with NPS, whole saliva, and GeneFiX™ were comparable (89·3%, 50/56; 87·8%, 43/49; 89·6%, 43/48). Both saliva collection methods were in good agreement (Kappa = 0·69). There was no statistical difference between the detection rates of saliva and NPS (p > 0·05). Detection was highest for the N2 gene whilst the E gene provided the highest viral load (mean = 27·96 to 30·10, SD = 3·14 to 3·85). Saliva specimens have high sensitivity (80·4%) and specificity (90·0%) with a high positive predictive value of 91·8% for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.
CONCLUSION: Saliva for SARS-CoV-2 screening is a simple accurate technique comparable with NPS RT-PCR.