Accuracy of saliva and nasopharyngeal sampling for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in community screening: a multicentric cohort study

  1. Solen Kernéis
  2. Caroline Elie
  3. Jacques Fourgeaud
  4. Laure Choupeaux
  5. Séverine Mercier Delarue
  6. Marie-Laure Alby
  7. Pierre Quentin
  8. Juliette Pavie
  9. Patricia Brazille
  10. Marie Laure Néré
  11. Marine Minier
  12. Audrey Gabassi
  13. Aurélien Gibaud
  14. Sébastien Gauthier
  15. Chrystel Leroy
  16. Etienne Voirin-Mathieu
  17. Claire Poyart
  18. Michel Vidaud
  19. Béatrice Parfait
  20. Constance Delaugerre
  21. Jean-Marc Tréluyer
  22. Jérôme LeGoff

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1007/s10096-021-04327-x
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.08.21255144: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval: The IRB Ile-de France III approved the study protocol prior to data collection (approval number 3840-NI) and all subsequent amendments.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    BlindingAnalyses of tests results were carried out blind of the result of the others and of the participant’s clinical data.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Cell Line Authenticationnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Experimental Models: Cell Lines
    SentencesResources
    NAAT results were considered positive if at least one gene was detected : either N, S or ORF1ab (for MGI-1 and MGI-2), and either E or ORF1ab (for Roche).
    MGI-1
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The statistical analysis was performed using R software (http://cran.r-project.org/).
    http://cran.r-project.org/
    suggested: (CRAN, RRID:SCR_003005)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:

    IdentifierStatusTitle
    NCT04578509RecruitingEvaluation of a Screening Program for SARS-CoV-2 Infection i…

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.04.08.21255144 on medRxiv