Odds of Testing Positive for SARS-CoV-2 Following Receipt of 3 vs 2 Doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.29.21262792: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Ethics declaration: This study was approved by the MHS (Maccabi Healthcare Services) Institutional Review Board.
    Consent: Due to the retrospective design of the study, informed consent was waived by the IRB and all identifying details of the participants were removed before computational analysis.
    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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Our study has the inherent limitation of being short-term and preliminary, and we only evaluate marginal effectiveness against infection rather than severe disease. The total benefit of the vaccine program will depend both on the long-term effectiveness of the first two doses of the vaccine, accounting for waning, and the marginal improvements conferred by receipt of the booster. These analyses focused on infections, which accrue quickly and in high numbers. As more time elapses, it will be possible to evaluate the effects on more rare but severe outcomes, such as hospitalization and death. It will also be important to monitor waning of effectiveness following receipt of the booster dose. There are methodological limitations to these analyses as well. As in every observational study, there is a potential bias relating to healthcare seeking behavior in terms of PCR test frequency in the examined groups. This could account for the discrepancy of the results in days 0-6 between the matched case-control analysis and the test-negative analysis. The test-negative design attempts to mitigate that potential bias but it cannot eliminate it. As those eligible for the third dose are early vaccinees, and given that chronically-ill patients were prioritized for vaccination, uncontrolled confounding by indication is possible. However, the matching and adjustment perfomed renders residual confounding by unmeasured factors less likely. We use odds ratios as an approximation of the relative r...

    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.