Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 detection in nasopharyngeal swab and saliva

  1. Sumio Iwasaki
  2. Shinichi Fujisawa
  3. Sho Nakakubo
  4. Keisuke Kamada
  5. Yu Yamashita
  6. Tatsuya Fukumoto
  7. Kaori Sato
  8. Satoshi Oguri
  9. Keisuke Taki
  10. Hajime Senjo
  11. Junichi Sugita
  12. Kasumi Hayasaka
  13. Satoshi Konno
  14. Mutsumi Nishida
  15. Takanori Teshima

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.05.071
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.13.20100206: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: This study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Board and informed consent was obtained from all patients.
    Consent: This study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Board and informed consent was obtained from all patients.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Experimental Models: Organisms/Strains
    SentencesResources
    PCR: Real-time reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) was conducted according to the manual for the Detection of Pathogen 2019-nCoV Ver.2.9.1, March
    Ver.2.9.1
    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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Although our study has several limitations due to the small number of samples and few samples within the first week of symptom onset, there have been few prospective studies to date comparing the two samples. Given the large benefits of saliva collection that does not require health worker specialists and protective equipment, our results together with recent studies support the use of saliva as a noninvasive alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs to greatly facilitate widespread PCR testing.

    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 10.1101/2020.05.13.20100206v2 on medRxiv
  4. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.13.20100206v1 on medRxiv