COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test at Hospital Admission Associated to the Knowledge of Individual Risk Factors Allow Overcoming the Difficulty of Managing Suspected Patients in Hospitals

  1. Priscilla S Filgueiras
  2. Camila A Corsini
  3. Nathalie BF Almeida
  4. Jessica V Assis
  5. Maria Luysa C Pedrosa
  6. Daniel AP de Miranda
  7. Sarah VC Gomes
  8. Raphael A Silva
  9. Maria Izabella VARC Medeiros
  10. Adelina J Lourenço
  11. Cecília MF Bicalho
  12. Raquel VR Vilela
  13. Gabriel R Fernandes
  14. Rafaella FQ Grenfell

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.26502/fjhs.055
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.06.21249282: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: Ethical statement: Written informed consent was obtained from each enrolled patient at the hospital.
    IRB: This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethical in Human Research Committee of Oswaldo Cruz Foundation and the National Brazilian Ethical Board
    RandomizationEighty per cent of the patients were randomly selected as the training set, and the algorithm performed 20 repetitions of cross-validation.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data analyses: The data retrieved from the medical records were explored using the Factor Analysis for Mixed Data (FAMD) from the FactoMineR package (11).
    FactoMineR
    suggested: (FactoMineR, RRID:SCR_014602)
    Differences on mortality rates and data of laboratory tests were calculated, respectively, by student t test and Fisher’s F-Test for two variances (p ≤ 0.05) on Minitab Software.
    Minitab
    suggested: (Minitab, RRID:SCR_014483)
    Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive values were calculated by MedCalc statistical software (p ≤ 0.05) (13).
    MedCalc
    suggested: (MedCalc, RRID:SCR_015044)
    The agreement between methods was assessed by Kappa Index calculated by GraphPad (GraphPad Software, Inc., USA): k < 0.01 no agreement; k = 0.01-0.20 ‘poor’; k = 0.21-0.40 ‘fair’; k = 0.41-0.60 ‘moderate’; k = 0.61-0.80 ‘substantial’; k = 0.81-1.00 ‘almost perfect’ (16).
    GraphPad
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)

    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.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.01.06.21249282 on medRxiv