Pushing beyond specifications: Evaluation of linearity and clinical performance of the cobas 6800/8800 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay for reliable quantification in blood and other materials outside recommendations

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 10.1101/2020.05.28.20115469: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: The use of anonymized samples was approved by the ethics committee, Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, PV5626. 3.6 Inter-run variability and comparability of results: Inter-run variability was compared between a total of four different instruments, located at 3 different testing sites.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Cell Line Authenticationnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Experimental Models: Cell Lines
    SentencesResources
    For virus quantification, plaque-assays were performed as follows: A tenfold serial dilution series of the virus containing solution was incubated on Vero cells seeded in 24-well plates (500 µl per well).
    Vero
    suggested: None
    Experimental Models: Organisms/Strains
    SentencesResources
    Target-1 (RdRp gene) and Target-2 (E gene) properties were analysed separately, though the entire assay was deemed positive as long as one Target returned a positive result.
    Target-1
    suggested: None

    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: 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.