Molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2: A validation of saliva samples

  1. Natalia Verissimo Rodrigues da Silva
  2. Samyra Stéphane Neves Pereira
  3. Karine Frehner Kavalco
  4. Fabiano Bezerra Menegídio
  5. Luanda Medeiros-Santana
  6. Liliane Evangelista Visôtto
  7. Rubens Pasa

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Nasopharyngeal swabs are the most used in sample collecting for covid-19 tests in SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnosis. However, this sampling method presents some disadvantages, since, in addition to being dependent on imported materials, it is invasive, causes discomfort in patients, and presents the risk of contamination for the medical collection team. This study aimed at validating saliva samples to obtain viral RNA to be used in the molecular diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2 using the RT-qPCR technique. Results presented 93, 44% concordance in comparison to nasopharyngeal swabs sampling. Therefore, saliva samples used in SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR detection tests presented consistent results.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.30574/gscarr.2022.10.2.0037
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.20.22269618: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot 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.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.01.20.22269618v1 on medRxiv