Flocked swab might be one main reason causing the high false-negative rate in COVID-19 screening----the advantages of a novel silicone swab
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
RNA testing using RT-PCR can provide direct evidence for diagnoses of COVID-19 which has brought unexpected disasters and changes to our human society. However, the absorption of cotton swab for RNA lysates may lead to a low concentration of detectable RNA, which might be one of the main reasons for the unstable positive detecting rate. We designed and manufactured a kind of silicone swab with concave-convex structure, and further compared the effects of silicone and cotton swab on RNA extraction. Principal component analysis and Paired Wilcoxcon test suggested that a higher RNA concentration and A260/A280 would be obtained using silicone swab. The results indicated that our silicone swab had a more excellent ability to sample than the cotton swab, characterized by the higher quantity and quality of extracted RNA. Thus, we advised that the current cotton swabs need to be improved urgently in COVID-19 diagnoses and the process of “sample collection” and “sample pre-processing” must be standardized and emphasized.
Highlights
The current cotton swabs need to be improved urgently in COVID-19 screening.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.03.29.014415: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: The protocol for this study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Northwest Minzu University. 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 …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.03.29.014415: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: The protocol for this study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Northwest Minzu University. 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 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.
-
