Clinical Performance of the cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B Assay in Nasal Samples

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.07.22268874: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: Verbal informed consent was obtained from all participants, and the ethical board of the University of Tsukuba approved the study (approval number: R03-41).
    IRB: Verbal informed consent was obtained from all participants, and the ethical board of the University of Tsukuba approved the study (approval number: R03-41).
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Python Software Foundation, Wilmington
    Python
    suggested: (IPython, RRID:SCR_001658)

    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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Our study has some limitations. First, we were unable to perform cobas testing on nasopharyngeal samples. The cobas assay has a high sensitivity and has been widely used worldwide [29,30]. The level of discordance may vary depending on the equipment used for comparison. Second, we did not evaluate performance of the assays in samples from individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 variants with gene mutations. The emergence of new variants could affect the diagnostic performance of the test. Third, the nasal samples used for molecular examination were collected after acquiring those used for antigen testing. The viral load in the nasal samples may have reduced due to the order of the procedure, which may have led to the variations in results obtained in the molecular examination. Finally, we did not use fresh samples for the evaluation of molecular examinations. Although to a miniscule degree, the storage process involving freezing and thawing also reportedly affects the viral load in samples [31]. In conclusion, the results of the Liat assay showed a high concordance with those of the other molecular assays in both nasal and nasopharyngeal samples. The findings of our study suggests that the Liat assay is suitable for use in a variety of clinical situations, primarily where accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 is necessary.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    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.