EasyCOV : LAMP based rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva
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
Covid-19 crisis showed us that rapid massive virus detection campaign is a key element in SARS-CoV-2 pandemic response. The classical RT-PCR laboratory platforms must be complemented with rapid and simplified technologies to enhance efficiency of large testing strategies.
To this aim, we developed EasyCOV, a direct saliva RT-LAMP based SARS-CoV-2 virus detection assay that do not requires any RNA extraction step. It allows robust and rapid response under safe and easy conditions for healthcare workers and patients.
EasyCOV test was assessed under double blind clinical conditions (93 asymptomatic healthcare worker volonteers, 10 actively infected patients, 20 former infected patients tested during late control visit). EasyCOV results were compared with classical laboratory RT-PCR performed on nasopharyngeal samples.
Our results show that compared with nasopharyngeal laboratory RT-PCR, EasyCOV SARS-CoV-2 detection test has a sensitivity of 72.7%. Measured on healthcare worker population the specificity was 95.7%. LAMP technology on saliva is clearly able to identify subjects with infectivity profile. Among healthcare worker population EasyCOV test detected one presymptomatic subject.
Because it is simple, rapid and painless for patients, EasyCOV saliva SARS-Cov-2 detection test may be useful for large screening of general population.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.30.20117291: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. 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: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:
Identifier Status Title NCT04337424 Completed Evaluation of … SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.30.20117291: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. 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: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:
Identifier Status Title NCT04337424 Completed Evaluation of Quickly Diagnostic Saliva Tests for SARS-CoV-2 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.
-
