Implications in the quantification of SARS-CoV2 copies in concurrent nasopharyngeal swabs, whole mouth fluid and respiratory droplets

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.03.21249157: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: Patients and samples: The study was approved by the VHS-Institutional Ethics Committee (proposal #: VHS-IEC/60-2020).
    Consent: A total of 80 patients with suspected COVID-19 symptoms were recruited after written informed consent from the out-patient department and COVID isolation wards of VHS Hospital, Chennai, India. For RT-PCR, NPS, WMF and RD samples were collected concurrently from all patients in our study.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Statistics: Mean and median were calculated using Microsoft excel.
    Microsoft excel
    suggested: (Microsoft Excel, RRID:SCR_016137)
    McNemar’s test, Chi-square test and t-tests were done using free online calculators from VassarStats and Social Science Statistics.
    VassarStats
    suggested: (VassarStats, RRID:SCR_010263)

    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:
    Limitations in the use of WMF/WMF include the time to collect a diligently drooled sample, which takes about 4-5 minutes: studies on comparable performance of a quick saline mouth rinse/gargle or of stimulated WMF (example by chewing on a bland substance such as paraffin wax) are warranted. We attempted to collect respiratory droplets from suspected COVID-19 patients simultaneously with NPS and WMF samples in a low resource setting using Whatman No. 1 filter paper discs that has particle retention of 11µm. We were able to detect SARS-CoV2 in 31% of the RD samples from NPS positive patients. Ryan et al showed a detection rate of 73.3% from exhaled breath condensate using two genes and 93.3% using four genes.12 The sample collection method (exhalation into an RTube) in Ryan et al’s study is superior to our resource limited collection method on a simple filter paper. Their collection time of two minutes is much longer than our five deep exhalations. These factors would contribute to the higher detection rate in Ryan et al’s study. In addition to detection, we have also quantitated the SARS-CoV2 copies in the RD samples: these had slightly lower median SARS-CoV2 copies, though the differences were not statistically significant. Varying clinical presentations and virus shedding rates have been correlated with numbers of influenza virus copies in nasopharyngeal samples.16,17 In this study, we have shown that virus copies were about two logs higher in the NPS samples of patients wit...

    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.