Saliva as a Candidate for COVID-19 Diagnostic Testing: A Meta-Analysis

  1. László Márk Czumbel
  2. Szabolcs Kiss
  3. Nelli Farkas
  4. Iván Mandel
  5. Anita Hegyi
  6. Ákos Nagy
  7. Zsolt Lohinai
  8. Zsolt Szakács
  9. Péter Hegyi
  10. Martin C. Steward
  11. Gábor Varga

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 10.3389/fmed.2020.00465
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.26.20112565: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Search strategy: A systematic search in English language filtering for records published after 1 January 2020 was performed in five different major electronic databases (Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) and also in five clinical trial registers (ClinicalTrial.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, NIPH Clinical Trial Search, ISRCTN Registry, ANZCTR Registry).
    Cochrane Library
    suggested: (Cochrane Library, RRID:SCR_013000)
    Embase
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    Study selection: We used EndNote X9.3.3 reference manger to organize records.
    EndNote
    suggested: (EndNote, RRID:SCR_014001)
    The sensitivity of the saliva test in the patient-based pooled data was calculated using the methods recommended by the working group of the Cochrane Collaboration.
    Cochrane Collaboration
    suggested: None
    Statistical analyses were carried out using the STATA software version 15.0.
    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: 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 10.1101/2020.05.26.20112565v1 on medRxiv