Validation of self-collected buccal swab and saliva as a diagnostic tool for COVID-19

  1. Chee Wai Ku
  2. Durai Shivani
  3. Jacqueline Q.T. Kwan
  4. See Ling Loy
  5. Christina Erwin
  6. Karrie K.K. Ko
  7. Xiang Wen Ng
  8. Lynette Oon
  9. Koh Cheng Thoon
  10. Shirin Kalimuddin
  11. Jerry K.Y. Chan

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

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. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.03.20205278: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: Written informed consent was obtained.
    IRB: This study was approved by the institution’s ethics review
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS Statistics Version 20.0
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    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:
    The vast differences in concordance rates may be due to limitations in sample collection. The lower PPA might also be limited by the amount and sample collection technique of the saliva test. Moreover, considering the similar viral load between saliva and NPS, this further supports that poor sample collection technique might be the reason leading to some saliva tests being completely negative. Unfortunately, our study did not investigate the quality of the saliva produced. Kojima et al observed that there were differences in positive detection rates between clinician supervised vs unsupervised self-collected saliva tests and NPS, which further supports that collection technique plays a big role in the positive detection rates [7]. Another possible explanation is the duration from diagnosis to sample collection. Wyllie et al has shown that a higher percentage of saliva samples remained positive up to 10 days after the COVID-19 diagnosis compared to NPS (81% vs 71%)[19], which is a result supported by other studies [20, 21]. Although our results show a non-significant relationship between interval after symptom onset and sample collection, other studies have shown a possibility that NP and saliva are most equivalent early in the illness compared to those collected beyond the first week [22]. Not surprisingly, the presence of symptoms increased the PPA for saliva compared to NPS (79.2%, 19/24). Overall, these findings provide supporting evidence for recommending saliva as an alt...

    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.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.12.080
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.10.03.20205278 on medRxiv