Natural spring water gargle and direct RT-PCR for the diagnosis of COVID-19 (COVID-SPRING study)

  1. Jeannot Dumaresq
  2. François Coutlée
  3. Philippe J. Dufresne
  4. Jean Longtin
  5. Judith Fafard
  6. Julie Bestman-Smith
  7. Marco Bergevin
  8. Emilie Vallières
  9. Marc Desforges
  10. Annie-Claude Labbé

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. Version published to 10.1016/j.jcv.2021.104995
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.11.21251938: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: After obtaining consent, an ONPS was first collected using a standardised method by a trained health care professional.
    IRB: This research was considered by our research ethics committee at CISSS de Chaudière-Appalaches and deemed exempt in accordance with the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans – TCPS 2 (2018).
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Discordant pairs and every pair containing at least one invalid result were also analyzed with the RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay (Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA).
    Abbott
    suggested: (Abbott, RRID:SCR_010477)
    RNA stability study: A volunteer gargled with 5 ml of four different waters (Eska; Naya; Molecular water BP2819, Fisher Bioreagents; Sterile water for irrigation, Baxter), three times with each water.
    Fisher Bioreagents
    suggested: (Fisher BioReagents, RRID:SCR_003374)
    Online MedCalc software (https://www.medcalc.org/calc/index.php) was used to calculate sensitivity, specificity, disease prevalence, predictive values, accuracy, likelihood ratios as well as comparison of proportions (chi-square test) and their respective confidence intervals.
    MedCalc
    suggested: (MedCalc, RRID:SCR_015044)

    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. Since we were using a direct RT-PCR method, ONPS transport medium had to be diluted 1:3 to avoid PCR inhibition and hence decrease invalid results rate. This dilution could have decreased ONPS clinical sensitivity at the advantage of gargle. Also, symptomatic patients in this study were all recruited within the first seven days of symptom onset so we cannot extrapolate our results to patients presenting later in the disease course. Moreover, we cannot either extrapolate our results to nursing home patients or infants/toddlers who were not included in this study, and who, in our experience, provide gargle samples with more difficulty.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.03.11.21251938 on medRxiv