Self-collected oral, nasal and saliva samples yield sensitivity comparable to professionally collected oro-nasopharyngeal swabs in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis among symptomatic outpatients

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.13.21255345: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: The study was reviewed by the ethics committee at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany (EA2/192/20), and written informed consent was obtained prior to study entry.
    Consent: The study was reviewed by the ethics committee at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany (EA2/192/20), and written informed consent was obtained prior to study entry.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    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:
    A limitation of our study is that only symptomatic patients were included. While there is no reason to believe that self-collection does not work in asymptomatic individuals, findings with respect to, e.g., symptom duration are not transferrable. Our study among SARS-CoV-2 positive patients could not produce specificity data. However, since specificity is predominantely determined by the diagnostic assay applied, we assume that this parameter is comparable for the sampling method. Moreover, potentially decreased specificity could still be addressed by confirming positivity via professional sample collections.

    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.