Complementary methods for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis in times of material shortage
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
The pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 resulted in increasing demands for diagnostic tests, leading to a shortage of recommended testing materials and reagents. This study reports on the performance of self-sampled alternative swabbing material (ordinary Q-tips tested against flocked swab and rayon swab), of reagents for classical RNA extraction (phenol/guanidine-based protocol against a commercial kit), and of intercalating dye-based one-step quantitative reverse transcription real-time PCRs (RT-qPCR) compared against the gold standard hydrolysis probe-based assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection. The study found sampling with Q-tips, RNA extraction with classical protocol and intercalating dye-based RT-qPCR as a reliable and comparably sensitive strategy for detection of SARS-CoV-2—particularly valuable in the current period with a resurgent and dramatic increase in SARS-CoV-2 infections and growing shortage of diagnostic materials especially for regions limited in resources.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.01.20242008: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Consent: All individuals gave written informed consent.
IRB: The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Universitätsklinikum Tübingen (Ref. number 20/231/B01).Randomization not detected. 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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study …SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.01.20242008: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Consent: All individuals gave written informed consent.
IRB: The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Universitätsklinikum Tübingen (Ref. number 20/231/B01).Randomization not detected. 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: 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 found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).
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.
-
