Self-collection: An appropriate alternative during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

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 10.1101/2020.04.09.20057901: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: This study was conducted across two laboratory sites (Site 1 and Site 2) and had ethics approval from the Western Australian branch of the Australian Medical Association, with all participants providing informed consent.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power AnalysisFrom power calculations assuming a significance level of 5% and a null hypothesis of low concordance between the HC and SC methods (H0: κ=0.3), there was at least 80% power to detect a concordance of 0.6 or more with a sample size of 66.
    Sex as a biological variablenot 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:
    Limitations of this study include the limited number of positive SARS-CoV-2 patients and modest number of other positive respiratory virus cases with the exception of rhinovirus. Further data on self-collection would be helpful to confirm these findings. In the setting of limited resources, both in terms of PPE and health care workers, these findings may be important for other health services. Furthermore, we have instituted use of a single swab to sample both throat then nasal sites. This has the potential to preserve limited supplies of swabs and also provide additional efficiencies in the laboratory as only preparation of a single sample per patient is required.

    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.