SARS-CoV-2 detection by extraction-free qRT-PCR for massive and rapid COVID-19 diagnosis during a pandemic in Armenia
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.09.10.20191189: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Institute of Molecular Biology NAS RA (IRB#: 00004079). Randomization The first group of 76 samples was collected randomly, without knowing the sample status. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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:However, most of the studies are done …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.09.10.20191189: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Institute of Molecular Biology NAS RA (IRB#: 00004079). Randomization The first group of 76 samples was collected randomly, without knowing the sample status. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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:However, most of the studies are done with small sample size, and needs to be expanded for better understanding performance and caveats associated with direct sample testing, In this study, we compared different direct qRT-PCR methods (without nucleic acid extraction). Overall, we observed consistent results for SARS-CoV-2 detection, however, the average Ct values for both direct methods were higher than for extracted RNA samples. Our study suggests that heat-inactivation and pelleting have more sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection PCR assay compared to heat-inactivation only. For the HC method +4.65 (for ORF1ab gene) and +5.53 (for N gene) median Ct differences were detected compared to purified nucleic acid samples. This could be for several reasons: i) for the same input volume of samples nucleic acid extraction yields higher quantity/quality of RNA compared with the direct sample; ii) RNA extraction was performed from fresh swab samples, while the aliquots used for the direct method had been stored at +4 °C for at least one day before heat-inactivation and PCR. The storage duration is known to cause the shift of results by 2-3 Ct compared to Ct values for eluates of matched fresh aliquots of the same nasopharyngeal specimens [11]. The overall sensitivity of 88% in our study was comparable to 87.8% (n = 41) reported by Alcoba-Florez et al. and was a bit lower than 93% (n = 77) reported by Brown et al., however the sample size in both studies were much smaller [5], [9]. We ...
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.
-
