Article activity feed

  1. Review 2: "Validation of a Saliva-Based Test for the Molecular Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection"

    This study finds that saliva samples can be used for population screening at a high rate of sensitivity and specificity, supporting other studies already showing that saliva tests can be comparable to NP swabs for COVID-19 testing. While reliable, there are some study flaws.

    Read the original source
    Was this evaluation helpful?
  2. Review 1: "Validation of a Saliva-Based Test for the Molecular Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection"

    This study finds that saliva samples can be used for population screening at a high rate of sensitivity and specificity, supporting other studies already showing that saliva tests can be comparable to NP swabs for COVID-19 testing. While reliable, there are some study flaws.

    Read the original source
    Was this evaluation helpful?
  3. Reviews of: "Validation of a Saliva-Based Test for the Molecular Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection"

    Reviewers: J Wang (US) | 📗📗📗📗◻️ • D Ranoa (University of Illinois) | 📒📒📒◻️◻️

    Read the original source
    Was this evaluation helpful?
  4. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.09.10.21263072: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: All samples collected were anonymized using an alpha-numeric identification code, and the study was approved by the Local Ethics Committee.
    Field Sample Permit: The conserving solution contained in the saliva collection tubes was provided by Biofarma Srl and it is protected by intellectual property.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    All analyses were performed by STATA 16 statistical software and statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
    STATA
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    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:
    Saliva samples can sometimes be difficult to handle with existing RNA extraction methods and equipment and the heterogeneity of saliva specimen can represent limitations, but there are several advantages (14, 31, 32, 36). Actually, saliva sample collection is non-invasive and can be easily performed by the individual themselves and this could reduce the risk of transmission to the sample takers (13, 14, 17). In our study, a high-concentrate saline solution was employed to collect saliva samples. The ionic strength of the solution acts as denaturing agent and destroys all protein and muco-protein’s structure, interfering on the interaction between the virus and the host cell. This observation represents an additional key aspect in mitigate the risk of infection during sample collection and allows to bypass the absence of dedicate spaces for the safe conduction of laboratory activity. In this work, the combination of the saliva self-collection procedure with the inhibiting property of Bsawb solution, could be considered an advancement to facilitate COVID-19 diagnostics. Furthermore, saliva collection facilitates sampling of children or disabled and this can increase the acceptance to routine testing practices performed at repeated intervals among high-risk populations. This modality of sample collection is easy and non-invasive, so it may be performed by non-healthcare professionals or individuals themselves who are properly instructed (13, 14, 16, 35). Overall, recent studies ...

    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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    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.

    Read the original source
    Was this evaluation helpful?