Understanding of and Trust in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Revised COVID-19 Isolation and Quarantine Guidance Among US Adults
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
- Evaluated articles (Rapid Reviews Infectious Diseases)
Abstract
Article activity feed
-
-
Berkeley Franz
Review 2: "Understanding of and Trust in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Revised COVID-19 Isolation and Quarantine Guidance Among US Adults"
This manuscript assesses the public's understanding of and trust in the CDC following its recent statement shortening the recommended time for isolation. Overall, reviewers feel that while timely, the preprint has a number of limitations, specifically in regards to sampling.
-
Kimberley Shoaf
Review 1: "Understanding of and Trust in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Revised COVID-19 Isolation and Quarantine Guidance Among US Adults"
This manuscript assesses the public's understanding of and trust in the CDC following its recent statement shortening the recommended time for isolation. Overall, reviewers feel that while timely, the preprint has a number of limitations, specifically in regards to sampling.
-
Strength of evidence
Reviewers: K Shoaf (University of Utah) | 📒📒📒 ◻️◻️
B Franz(Ohio University) | 📗📗📗📗◻️ -
SciScore for 10.1101/2022.02.01.22270288: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics Consent: The study was approved by Harvard University’s Committee on the Use of Human Subjects, and participants provided informed consent electronically before beginning the survey. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not 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:Limitations of the study include that it was conducted only online, such that …
SciScore for 10.1101/2022.02.01.22270288: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics Consent: The study was approved by Harvard University’s Committee on the Use of Human Subjects, and participants provided informed consent electronically before beginning the survey. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not 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:Limitations of the study include that it was conducted only online, such that individuals without internet access may have been undersampled, and use of a nonprobability sample, which limits generalizability to the US population as a whole.
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.
-
