Supervised Self-Collected SARS-Cov-2 Testing in Classroom-Based Summer Camps to Inform Safe In-Person Learning

  1. Peter B Cooch
  2. Annalisa Watson
  3. Apryl Olarte
  4. Emily D Crawford
  5. Joseph L DeRisi
  6. Bryan Greenhouse
  7. Jill Hakim
  8. Keirstinne Turcios
  9. Katherine S Pollard
  10. Lee R Atkinson-McEvoy
  11. Raphael Hirsch
  12. Roberta L Keller
  13. Theodore D Ruel
  14. Auritte Cohen-Ross
  15. Araceli Leon
  16. Naomi S Bardach

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.26502/jppch.74050065
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.21.20214338: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: Recruitment and enrollment: Camp directors sent a recruitment email to parents and staff, including a link to the consent form and baseline survey and a video of a child self-collecting an anterior nasal swab (Supplement A).
    IRB: The institutional review board at UCSF approved this study as public health surveillance.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    RT-PCR and antibody testing results provide measures of acute incidence of infection and prevalence of prior infection, respectively, in the study population.
    RT-PCR
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    1 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX).
    StataCorp
    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:
    We noted potential limitations in the feasibility of self-collected saliva testing in younger children, including the need for closer coaching among younger children for adequate saliva sampling. The antibody reversion of two young children based on saliva samples may have been due to variable sample collection, as it is biologically unlikely that they would have reverted in this time frame, and one of the two had evidence of low total antibodies in the second sample. These findings emphasize the importance of feasibility assessments when introducing novel sampling strategies for children. For example, Wyllie et al. have demonstrated self-collected saliva RT-PCR testing SARS-CoV-2 testing to be feasible and to have excellent test characteristics in adults.18 However, this saliva sampling method requires collection prior to eating or drinking upon waking, and production of 3ml of saliva without bubbles into a cup, which is more complicated than the saliva collection we studied. Neither indoor camp experienced documented COVID-19 cases or outbreaks in the context of described infection mitigation strategies, despite levels of community transmission greater than the California county “watchlist” criteria for school reopening (<10 new cases per 10,000 people per 14 days).15 This finding aligns with prior literature demonstrating limited or no school-based outbreaks or transmission in the setting of physical distancing, stable cohorts, reduced numbers of students, though prior stu...

    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 10.1101/2020.10.21.20214338v1 on medRxiv