Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 Sep 26;19(9):e0304747. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304747

Continuous quality improvement with a two-step strategy effective for mass SARS-CoV-2 screening at the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games

Hayato Miyachi 1,2,*, Satomi Asai 1, Rika Kuroki 3, Kazuya Omi 3,4,5, Chiaki Ikenoue 6, Satoshi Shimada 7,8
Editor: Etsuro Ito9
PMCID: PMC11426491  PMID: 39325692

Abstract

The Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games (Games) were held during the height of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. To detect people infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) early enough to contain the spread and to facilitate the timely arrival of athletes at their game venues, all participating athletes staying in the Olympic Village (up to 14,000) were screened daily for the infection. Toward this aim, a two-step strategy was adopted comprising screening of self-collected saliva samples using a chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassay, followed by confirmatory testing using polymerase chain reaction. The testing system was integrated with an information management system covering all steps. To ensure the accuracy of the test results, rigorous quality assurance measures and monitoring of performance/specimen quality were implemented. A chronological chart analysis was implemented to monitor the holistic process and to give feedback to improve the sampling. Nearly all test results for 418,506 saliva samples were reported within 12 hours of sample collection, achieving the target mean turnaround time of 150 minutes for confirmatory testing. As a result, athlete activity and performance for the Games were ensured. The chronological chart confirmed that no athletes were withdrawn due to a false-positive result, and no infection clusters were identified among the athletes in the Olympic Village. In conclusion, continuous quality improvement as part of the two-step strategy for mass screening for COVID-19 contributed to the success of the Games during the pandemic. The quality practice, systems, and workflows described here may offer a model for future mass-gathering sporting events during similar major infectious disease epidemics.

Introduction

Held in Summer 2021 following a 1-year postponement during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games faced the challenge of surging COVID-19 rates, with the incidence reaching unprecedented levels both in Tokyo and globally [1]. The Tokyo 2020 Infectious Diseases Control Center organized by the Tokyo Organizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (TOCOG) played a vital role in containing the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during the Games by implementing planned biosafety protocols, including frequent testing for SARS-CoV-2 [2].

Although the “gold standard” of SARS-CoV-2 testing by means of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using nasopharyngeal (NP) swab samples is accurate and reliable, the turnaround time (TAT) for reporting the results may take 24–48 h. Such delays may lead to not only further transmission of disease but can also diminish the daily activity of athletes for training and arrival at the event venues. Furthermore, it requires trained professionals in full protective equipment to collect specimens individually, one person at a time. Solutions to improve the efficiency of mass screening for SARS-CoV-2 included implementing a two-step screening process comprising screening of self-collected saliva samples using a chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassay (CLEIA), followed by confirmatory PCR testing [35]. The scientific framework of this strategy has been reported previously. This strategic allocation of PCR tests to cases that were CLEIA-positive or inconclusive not only maintained accuracy but also significantly improved logistical efficiency in administering mass screening. To detect the virus with sufficient time to contain the spread as well as to maintain their daily training activities prior to competing in events and facilitate the timely arrival of athletes at their game venues, all participating athletes and others staying in the Olympic Village were screened daily for SARS-CoV-2 infection with this two-step strategy. Although this strategy had been confirmed to work in a short period for screening travelers at international airports, its utility for mass-gathering sporting events had not previously been evaluated. We implemented this strategy in an international multi-sports event, i.e. the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games, implementing daily screening and longitudinal follow-up of all athletes.

The integration of a testing system with an information management system covering all steps from specimen collection to reporting of the results, enabled confirmatory test results to be provided within 12 hours, aiming for a mean TAT of 150 minutes for confirmatory tests. In addition, our challenge was to avoid the risk of infection when gathering at the collection booth; therefore, we adopted a policy of self-collection of saliva in individuals’ own rooms in their living quarters. However, self-sampling in individual rooms posed a risk of poor specimen quality due to suboptimal preparation, collection, and storage. To ensure the accuracy of the COVID-19 screening test, we implemented continuous quality improvement through rigorous quality assurance measures, performance/specimen quality monitoring by an internal quality assessment, and a chronological chart analysis for individual cases.

Material and methods

A two-step mass screening strategy

The study was planned and conducted at the request of the TOCOG according to the regulation and the criteria specified by the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare of Japan. Up to 14,000 athletes and team officials were tested for SARS-CoV-2 daily to detect infections as soon as possible, as required by the TOCOG.

To facilitate the timely arrival of athletes at their game venues, test results had to be available within a 12-hour TAT. For this mass screening, a two-step strategy was adopted, instead of screening by PCR alone [25]. First, quantitative antigen testing was performed using a quantitative CLEIA with a fully automated instrument (Lumipulse® Presto SARS-CoV-2 Ag, Fujirebio, Tokyo, Japan). The quantitative CLEIA is a high-throughput assay with high sensitivity, specificity, and short TAT, and can provide rapid screening test results using saliva specimens. All specimens were tested by CLEIA with positive and negative thresholds of 4.0 pg/mL and 0.67 pg/mL, respectively, using the specified reagents according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Positive or inconclusive results were confirmed using a standard PCR test. If the saliva PCR showed positive results, a nasopharyngeal (NP) swab was collected at the fever clinic in the Olympic Village for confirmatory PCR testing using the SARS-CoV-2 Direct Detection RT-qPCR Kit (Takara Bio Inc., Kusatsu, Japan) and instruments such as QuantStudio5 (Thermo Fisher Scientific K.K., Waltham, MA, USA), LightCycler 96 (Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., Pleasanton, CA), or CFX96 (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., Hercules, CA, USA). Symptomatic participants also underwent PCR testing of NP swabs. The workflow was integrated with an information management system. Self-collected saliva was brought to the reception area by COVID-19 Liaison Officers (CLOs). At the reception department, accreditation ID was linked with the sample ID in the information management system by barcode. Radiofrequency identification (RFID, Toppan Forms Inc., Tokyo, Japan) was incorporated into the information management system for specimen identification. The laboratory information and reporting system (Neo Polalis and Futada System, H.U. Group Research Institute G.K., Tokyo, Japan) allowed for real-time monitoring of the workflow processes of each test, covering the entire process from receipt of the specimen to reporting the result to CLOs, in addition to recording the internal laboratory workflow (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Workflow quality monitoring.

Fig 1

The workflow was integrated with an information management system. Self-collected saliva was brought to the reception area by COVID-19 Liaison Officers (CLOs). The accreditation ID of personnel in the Olympic Village was linked with radiofrequency identification and sample ID barcodes. This feedback process was used to communicate with the TOCOG about re-training of CLOs and TOCOG staff in appropriate collection techniques, including self-sampling of saliva before eating, specimen refrigeration within 24 hours of sampling, and NP swab collection, enabling real-time corrections of the process.

Five laboratories coordinated to conduct testing for various Olympic Games venues. Quantitative CLEIA and PCR tests were also performed in four laboratories outside the Olympic Village, located in Kawasaki, Tokyo, Sapporo, and Iwaki.

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to the Act on the Prevention of Infectious Diseases and Medical Care for Patients with Infectious Diseases (the Infectious Diseases Control Law) in Japan.

Rigorous quality assurance measures

As the Tokyo 2020 Games was an international multi-sport event during a pandemic, quality laboratory practices based on both global and regional perspectives were rigorously implemented [6, 7]. Actions were taken based on discussion and consensus during the development of the International Organization for Standardization standard (ISO/TS 5798) for SARS-CoV-2 detection using nucleic acid amplification methods [6]. To maintain the expected performance of SARS-CoV-2 laboratory tests, meticulous quality assurance measures such as personnel training, competency assessments, assay performance evaluations, and internal quality controls based on cycle threshold values, were implemented. The assay performance was monitored and confirmed by a nationwide external quality assessment of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests in Japan [7].

Results

Test volume and turnaround time

During the Games, all participating athletes (up to 14,000) and others staying in the Olympic Village were screened daily for SARS-CoV-2 infection with the two-step strategy of screening self-collected saliva samples using a CLEIA followed by confirmatory testing of saliva and nasopharyngeal swab samples using PCR. Using a testing system integrated with an information management system covering all steps, from specimen collection to reporting of the results, enabled monitoring of each test and provision of confirmatory test results. A total of 418,506 saliva samples were tested using the quantitative antigen test. Nearly all tests were reported within 12 hours of sample collection. The median TAT was 140 minutes (interquartile range: 103–197 minutes), aligning with the target of a mean TAT of 150 minutes for confirmatory tests.

Continuous quality improvement

Quality assurance of tests based on both global and regional perspectives was rigorously implemented and continuously monitored. Quality assurance measures included personnel training, competency assessments, assay performance evaluations, and internal quality controls based on cycle threshold values. To ensure the entire examination process from sample collection to the results reporting, we developed and analyzed a chronological chart of cases with positive and inconsistent results, providing a holistic overview of the testing process, confirming test results, and identifying underlying problems including poor specimen quality and false-positive results. Inconsistent results were interpreted and judged whether reasonable as a natural course of infection or suspicious test result due to a possible error in any portion of the testing process.

Particularly, sample collection methods could impact the results; the pre-examination process posed a critical challenge for mass screening. CLOs played a crucial role in instructing athletes and team officials in proper self-sampling procedures. However, self-sampling in individuals’ own rooms in their living quarters had a risk of poor specimen quality due to suboptimal preparation, collection and storage practices. Visual examination of specimens revealed sediments, which caused nonspecific reactions, increasing a risk of false-positive results, rates of re-measurement, and thus prolonging the TAT. We requested the TOCOG to re-educate CLOs about appropriate collection (e.g. prior to eating). To minimize the occurrence of nonspecific reactions due to sediments, the dilution buffer was changed from phosphate buffered saline to a proprietary buffer. As a result, the rate of repeated measurement after re-centrifugation significantly decreased from 8.0% (16/200) to 0.5% (1/200).

We evaluated the quality of 100 specimens using amylase measurement with CicaLiquid AMY (Kanto Chemical Co., Inc., Tokyo, Japan) on a fully automated analyzer (JCA-BM8040, JEOL Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). A high proportion of specimens showed amylase levels under the reference range, suggesting inappropriate storage of specimens at ambient temperature. In the continuous quality improvement of testing during the Games, constant monitoring was implemented to identify potential bias, which allowed real-time actionable feedback to the TOCOG. We used this feedback process to communicate with TOCOG regarding the re-training of CLOs and TOCOG staff in appropriate collection techniques including self-sampling of saliva before eating, specimen refrigeration within 24 hours of sampling, and NP swab collection. This enabled real-time corrections in the testing process. As a result, the activity and performance of athletes for daily training and participation in the Games were ensured. The chronological chart for the individual test results enabled us to confirm in real-time that there were neither infection clusters identified in athletic teams inside the Olympic Village or Games venues due to false-negative results, nor unnecessary withdrawal of athletes from the Games due to false-positive results.

Overall, 11,417 and 4,403 athletes participated in the Olympic and Paralympic Games, respectively. A total of 418,506 screening tests were performed on athletes and team officials during the Games. The screening detected 53 cases, which were later confirmed. The positivity rate was 0.03% (53/15,820) [2].

Limitations

The testing for SARS-CoV-2 detection to detect infections early was performed, according to the regulation and the criteria specified by the Ministry of Health, and Labour in Japan. Ideally, the quality and competence of the laboratory and the reliability of its testing service would be objectively audited and endorsed by the third-party accreditation. However, in Japan, laboratory accreditation under ISO 15189, Medical Laboratories–Requirements for quality and competence [8], applies to laboratory tests for medical use but not to those for public use such as for SARS-CoV-2 screening tests of participating athletes and others staying in the Olympic Village. Thus, the laboratory was not subjected to accreditation under ISO 15189. The operation of laboratories was built and conducted in alignment with the criteria specified for the central laboratory which had been accredited under ISO 15189 and had a responsibility for the testing for SARS-CoV-2 detection under a contract with the TOCOG.

Discussion

To detect SARS-CoV-2 infections as soon as possible and to take measures to prevent further spread, a two-step strategy was adopted to meet the mass screening requirements of the event. The integration of a testing system with an information management system covering all steps from specimen collection to reporting of the results enabled confirmatory test results to be provided within 12 hours, achieving our target of a mean TAT of 150 minutes for confirmatory testing. This integration enabled all athletes to maintain their daily training prior to their events and to participate at the event venue.

The accuracy of testing results can have an impact on the risk of transmission of disease. False-negative results may lead to further transmission of disease. False-positive results would lead to the withdrawal of the athlete from further participation in the Games. Considering the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games being an international multi-sport event during a pandemic, quality laboratory practices based on both global and regional perspectives were rigorously implemented. To minimize the risk of inaccurate results, we implemented and maintained rigorous quality assurance of the entire process of daily testing for SARS-CoV-2. Quality assurance measures were implemented and continuously monitored, including personnel training, competency assessments, assay performance evaluations, and internal quality controls based on cycle threshold values. The sample collection process was a critical challenge of mass screening. CLOs instructed athletes and team officials on how to perform self-sampling. However, self-sampling in individual rooms posed a risk of poor specimen quality due to suboptimal preparation, collection and storage. To monitor the quality of specimens, we adopted visual inspection and measurement of amylase in saliva. In the continuous quality improvement of testing during the Games, constant monitoring was implemented to identify potential bias, which allowed real-time actionable feedback to the TOCOG.

This case study shows that international major sporting events can be held during major infectious disease epidemics comparable to the COVID-19 pandemic without causing spikes in the case numbers [9]. These results support the approach, advocated by the World Health Organization, that responding to and managing the COVID-19 pandemic requires using all available options, including public health and social measures, robust test-and-trace systems, and vaccination [1]. During the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, most mass-gathering sports events used PCR testing for infection control, which required an extended TAT for receiving results and enforcing quarantine [1012]. Furthermore, PCR has a potential risk of false-positive results, which could have caused unnecessary withdrawal of athletes from the Games. Our experience suggests that continuous quality improvement implemented in the two-step strategy and infection control measures at the Games were successful. Notably, the chronological chart for the individual test results enabled us to confirm in real-time that there were neither infection clusters identified in athletic teams inside the Olympic Village or Games venues due to false-negative results, nor unnecessary withdrawal of athletes from the Games due to false-positive results.

Conclusion

In conclusion, continuous quality improvement was implemented in the two-step strategy for mass COVID-19 screening and contributed to the success of international major sporting events during the pandemic. The quality practice, systems, and workflows of testing with continuous quality improvement, described in this report could serve as a model for future mass-gathering sporting events during similar major infectious disease epidemics.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Tokyo 2020 Organizing Committee. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Tokyo 2020 Organizing Committee. The Tokyo 2020 Organizing Committee does not endorse any commercial products or services.

Data Availability

Due to a confidentiality agreement with the Tokyo Organizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (TOCOG), there are strict restrictions on sharing data. Information on clinical performance can only be shared as specified in TOCOG’s press releases. Sharing deidentified data would be considered inappropriate, as it could potentially reveal identifying or sensitive information about participants when combined with details from TOCOG’s press releases. Releasing such data could compromise the accountability of the Committee, which played a critical role in controlling the spread of SARS-CoV-2 during the Games. As a result, the Ethics Committee of Nitobe Bunka College has imposed strict restrictions on sharing deidentified data sets. When a researcher is interested in accessing the minimal dataset for this study, please provide a rationale for the request along with details regarding the de-identified data. Data are available upon request from the Ethics Committee of Nitobe Bunka College, via mail (3-43-16 Nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0001, Japan) or telephone (+81-3-3381-0121), for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization (2020). Rolling updates on coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Available from: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/events-as-they-happen (Accessed on 27 Nov 2023).
  • 2.Shimada S, Ikenoue C, Iwashita Y, Miyamoto T. Contributions of the Tokyo 2020 Infectious Diseases Control Centre in curbing SARS-CoV-2 spread during the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Br J Sports Med. 2023;57:6–7. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2022-105691 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Yokota I, Shane PY, Teshima T. Logistic advantage of two-step screening strategy for SARS-CoV-2 at airport quarantine. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2021;43:102127. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2021.102127 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Yokota I, Shane PY, Okada K, Unoki Y, Yang Y, Inao T, et al. Mass Screening of Asymptomatic Persons for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Using Saliva. Clin Infect Dis. 2021. Aug 273(3):e559–e565. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1388 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Yokota I, Shane PY, Okada K, Unoki Y, Yang Y, Iwasaki S, at al. A novel strategy for SARS-CoV-2 mass screening with quantitative antigen testing of saliva: a diagnostic accuracy study. Lancet Microbe. 2021. Aug2(8):e397–e404. doi: 10.1016/S2666-5247(21)00092-6 Epub 2021 May 19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.International Organization for Standardization. ISO/TS 5798; 2022. In vitro diagnostic test systems–Requirements and recommendations for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by nucleic acid amplification methods. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/81712.html (Accessed on 27 Nov 2023).
  • 7.Asai S, Seki A, Akai Y, Tazawa H, Kakizoe H, Ravzanaaadii MA, et al. Nationwide external quality assessment of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests in Japan. Int J Infect Dis. 2022;115:86–92. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.11.022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.ISO 15189:2022. Medical laboratories—Requirements for quality and competence. https://www.iso.org/standard/76677.html
  • 9.Burke P. Tokyo 2020 did not result in increased COVID-19 cases in Japan IOC claims citing study. 31 Dec 2021. https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1117299/tokyo-2020-covid-cases-contained-ioc
  • 10.Nishino T Obara K Nishida Y et al. Large-scale international volleyball competition in "bubble" under the COVID-19 pandemic. Asia Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol. 202227:9–12. doi: 10.1016/j.asmart.2021.12.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Caniza H Forriol F Pangrazio O et al. Safety of international professional sports competitions during the COVID-19 pandemic: the association football experience. Sports Med. 202353:765–768. doi: 10.1007/s40279-022-01763-3. Epub 2022 Sep 27. PMID: 36167919 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 12.Zhang Y, Ai J, Bao J, Zhang W. Lessons learned from the COVID-19 control strategy of the XXXII Tokyo Summer Olympics and the XXIV Beijing Winter Olympics. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2022;11:1711–1716. doi: 10.1080/22221751.2022.2090859 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Etsuro Ito

8 Jul 2024

PONE-D-24-17763Continuous quality improvement with a two-step strategy effective for large-scale SARS-CoV-2 screening at the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic GamesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Miyachi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 22 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Etsuro Ito, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: "I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: For non-financial conflicts of interest, H.M., S.A., S.S., and C.I. have published several papers about COVID-19 and could have conflicts of interest among healthcare professionals. For financial conflicts of interest, H.M. was a consultant at SRL Laboratories and an adviser for the laboratory in the Olympic and Paralympic Village in Harumi, Tokyo, Japan. H.M. and S.A. were involved in the nationwide external quality assessment of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid tests, a project commissioned by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan. S.A. contributed to studies on SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests developed by DENSO Corp. and KYORIN Pharm. Co., Ltd. that were financially supported by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development. R.K. and K.O. rendered laboratory service for athletes and team officials during the Tokyo 2020 Games as a commission project by the Tokyo Organizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. S.S. and C. I. worked as staff members for Tokyo 2020 during the Tokyo 2020 Games. The authors report no other potential conflicts of interest."

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: ""This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. 

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. In the online submission form, you indicated that "The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request."

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript is interesting in the field of laboratory medicine. However, the purpose is obscure and completely retrospective fashion. I can not find the novel point in this manuscript. In addition, the conclusion is not new for the researcher engaged in the field.

Reviewer #2: In this study, Miyachi et al. described a process of two-step strategy for large-scale screening of SARS-CoV-2 at the Tokyo 2020 Olympic. Although this paper is submitted as a research article, almost no data presented. Important studies that are the scientific backbone of this airport quarantine system using saliva samples are missing. They should be introduced with comments and references (Yokota, Clin Infect Dis 2021: Yokota, Lancet Microbes 2021).

Reviewer #3: Miyachi et al. describe in this manuscript their experience with large-scale SARS-CoV-2 screening of participants at the Tokyo Olympics, and state that it provides a model for future infectious disease responses to large-scale sporting events. The two-stage strategy proposed and implemented by the authors, using antigen quantification testing prior to PCR, was presumably beneficial, but more information in support of this would be helpful.

Major comments.

(1) Page 7, lines 148-150: Although the mean of TAT is given, I feel that this alone makes it difficult to assess the bias of the values. Would it be possible to show the distribution in the raw data or information on quartiles?

(2) Page 8, lines 179-182: It seems to me that in order to assess the actual extent of disadvantage due to false-positive results, information such as the results of the second PCR test among those who were positive in the first stage of antigen quantification testing is needed. Although the final percentage of positives is shown in page 10, lines 230-231, I think that these should be included in the Result together with the above breakdown.

(3) Page 10, lines 226-227: It is mentioned that the PCR test has a potential risk of false positives, but I think that the risk of false positives for antigen quantification tests should also be mentioned. Rather, to reduce the risk of final false-positives, is the design of antigen quantification as a prior step to the PCR method more important?

Minor comments

(1) Page 3, Line 51: "Tokyo 2020 Games" should be changed to "Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games".

(2) Page 3, Line 63: "instead of PCR screening" alone does not make sense, so the wording should make it clear that it is a comparison with PCR alone.

(3) Page 7, lines 167-171: Can you give the information regarding sample number of quality assessment by amylase measurement?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 1

Etsuro Ito

12 Sep 2024

Continuous quality improvement with a two-step strategy effective for mass SARS-CoV-2 screening at the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games

PONE-D-24-17763R1

Dear Dr. Miyachi,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Etsuro Ito, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors responded all the issues raised and the manuscript has been improved. I have no more comments on this

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Etsuro Ito

16 Sep 2024

PONE-D-24-17763R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Miyachi,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Etsuro Ito

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx

    pone.0304747.s001.docx (31.4KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Due to a confidentiality agreement with the Tokyo Organizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (TOCOG), there are strict restrictions on sharing data. Information on clinical performance can only be shared as specified in TOCOG’s press releases. Sharing deidentified data would be considered inappropriate, as it could potentially reveal identifying or sensitive information about participants when combined with details from TOCOG’s press releases. Releasing such data could compromise the accountability of the Committee, which played a critical role in controlling the spread of SARS-CoV-2 during the Games. As a result, the Ethics Committee of Nitobe Bunka College has imposed strict restrictions on sharing deidentified data sets. When a researcher is interested in accessing the minimal dataset for this study, please provide a rationale for the request along with details regarding the de-identified data. Data are available upon request from the Ethics Committee of Nitobe Bunka College, via mail (3-43-16 Nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0001, Japan) or telephone (+81-3-3381-0121), for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES