Self-Collected Saline Gargle Samples as an Alternative to Health Care Worker-Collected Nasopharyngeal Swabs for COVID-19 Diagnosis in Outpatients
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
We assessed the performance, stability, and user acceptability of swab-independent self-collected saliva and saline mouth rinse/gargle sample types for the molecular detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in adults and school-aged children. Outpatients who had recently been diagnosed with COVID-19 or were presenting with suspected COVID-19 were asked to have a nasopharyngeal (NP) swab collected and provide at least one self-collected sample type.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.09.13.20188334: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Consent: Verbal consent was obtained from all participants and for those who provided both saliva and saline mouth rinse/gargle samples the order of sample collection was alternated sequentially (i.e. saliva first vs mouth rinse/gargle sample first).
IRB: This project was reviewed by the BC Children’s and Women’s Research Ethics Board and deemed a quality improvement/quality assurance (QI/QA) activity based on completion of the Provincial Health Services Authority Project Sorting Tool.Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources All … SciScore for 10.1101/2020.09.13.20188334: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Consent: Verbal consent was obtained from all participants and for those who provided both saliva and saline mouth rinse/gargle samples the order of sample collection was alternated sequentially (i.e. saliva first vs mouth rinse/gargle sample first).
IRB: This project was reviewed by the BC Children’s and Women’s Research Ethics Board and deemed a quality improvement/quality assurance (QI/QA) activity based on completion of the Provincial Health Services Authority Project Sorting Tool.Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources All testing was done using STATA v16.1 (College Station, TX). STATAsuggested: (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: 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.
-
