Negative Nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 PCR Conversion in Response to Different Therapeutic Interventions

  1. Hassan Alwafi
  2. Mohammed H Shabrawishi
  3. Abdallah Y Naser
  4. Ahmad M Aldobyany
  5. Sultan A Qanash
  6. Abdelfattah A Touman

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 10.7759/cureus.21442
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.08.20095679: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: 2.6 Ethical approval: The study protocol was reviewed and approved the institutional ethics board at the Ministry of Health in Saudi Arabia (No. H-02-K-076-0420-286).
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    2.7 Statistical analysis: Data were analysed using the SPSS software, version 25.
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    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:
    Strengths and limitations: This study has several strengths. To our knowledge, this was the first study in the Middle East region to explore the association between the use of HCQ as monotherapy or combination therapy and the odds of achieving negative PCR sample in COVID-19 patients. As the data collection center was the designated regional COVID-19 center, patients were diagnosed at different locations and then transferred to our center thus our study cohort is less susceptible to selection biases of single-center studies. However, our study has some limitations. The study design was a retrospective single referral center. Thus, it inherent all retrospective analyses limitation such as non-randomization of treatments. In addition, the small sample size in our study specifically for the subgroups in the intervention group (group A) might have limited our ability to explore statistically significant difference and had led to a wide confidence intervals. Despite that we conducted multiple logistic regression to adjust for the severity of the disease and the age, patients could still have confounders that we were not able to measure and might influenced our findings.

    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 10.1101/2020.05.08.20095679v1 on medRxiv