Examination of SARS-CoV-2 In-Class Transmission at a Large Urban University With Public Health Mandates Using Epidemiological and Genomic Methodology

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 10.1101/2022.03.16.22271983: (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

    Experimental Models: Organisms/Strains
    SentencesResources
    Approximately 0.14% of these tests (896) showed detectable SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcriptase real-time PCR (rRT-PCR) using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) primers for N1, N2[5].
    N2
    suggested: None

    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:
    Limitations of our analysis include some inherent subjectivity in traditional epidemiologic investigations that center on an individual remembering all relevant interactions. This study occurred during a phase of the pandemic when the only variants circulating were associated with delta sublineages, and the findings may not apply to other SARS-CoV-2 variants. However, it does not at this point appear that the subsequent rise of the omicron variant increased the risk of in-class transmission. The omicron peak took place during a time when classes were not in session, and the return to class in 2022 was marked by rapidly falling disease incidence on campus despite in-person classes. This pattern is unlike the fall 2021 transmission pattern, where consistent transmission levels were seen over months of in-person classes.

    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.