The dark side of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing: screening asymptomatic patients

  1. G. Caruana
  2. L.-L. Lebrun
  3. O. Aebischer
  4. O. Opota
  5. L. Urbano
  6. M. de Rham
  7. O. Marchetti
  8. G. Greub

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.nmni.2021.100899
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.24.21256040: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: This analysis in the frame of the CHUV Microbiology Laboratory Quality Control Program was approved by the institutional Ethical Review Board.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    RAT and RT-PCR results were compared in the frame of the EHC Patients Safety Program.
    EHC Patients Safety Program
    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:
    These RATs limitations represent key issues for patients’ safety in the hospital arguing against the use of RAT screening among asymptomatic patients admitted via the Emergency Department.

    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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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 10.1101/2021.04.24.21256040 on medRxiv