Self-Collected Oral Fluid and Nasal Swabs Demonstrate Comparable Sensitivity to Clinician Collected Nasopharyngeal Swabs for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Detection

  1. N Kojima
  2. F Turner
  3. V Slepnev
  4. A Bacelar
  5. L Deming
  6. S Kodeboyina
  7. J D Klausner

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

We compared self-collected oral fluid swab specimens with and without clinician supervision, clinician-supervised self-collected anterior nasal swab specimens, and clinician-collected nasopharyngeal swab specimens for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Supervised oral fluid and nasal swab specimens performed similarly to clinician-collected nasopharyngeal swab specimens. No sample type could detect SARS-CoV-2 infections amongst all positive participants.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1093/cid/ciaa1589
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.11.20062372: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: Participants were given a study information sheet and gave verbal informed consent.
    IRB: z Ethics statement: The Institutional Review Board of the University of California Los Angeles reviewed and approved the study (reference number 20-000545).
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    For the clinician-supervised self-collected nasal swab specimen, a kit was provided that included a flocked swab (CLASSIQSwabs™
    CLASSIQSwabs™
    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: 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 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 10.1101/2020.04.11.20062372v1 on medRxiv