Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 viral load in saliva samples in symptomatic and asymptomatic cases
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
SARS-CoV-2 infections can be symptomatic as well as asymptomatic. In this study, we analyzed 460,814 saliva samples collected from July 2020 to January 2021 for a SARS-CoV-2-specific gene target using the FDA EUA test, CRL Rapid Response™, based on reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). We measured SARS-CoV-2 viral loads using cycle threshold (Ct) values. A total of 17,813 samples tested positive for COVID-19 using self-collected saliva samples. The Ct values ranged from 11 to 40, 91.3% distributed between 22 to 38 Ct. We then compared Ct values for symptomatic and asymptomatic cases for all positive saliva samples. A total of 8,706 cases were symptomatic with an average Ct value of 29.24, and 9,107 cases were asymptomatic with an average Ct value of 30.99. Hence, SARS-CoV-2 viral loads (Ct) in saliva samples for both symptomatic and asymptomatic cases are similar.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.12.21251229: (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: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar …
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.12.21251229: (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: 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.
-
