Racial, Economic, and Health Inequality and COVID-19 Infection in the United States

  1. Vida Abedi
  2. Oluwaseyi Olulana
  3. Venkatesh Avula
  4. Durgesh Chaudhary
  5. Ayesha Khan
  6. Shima Shahjouei
  7. Jiang Li
  8. Ramin Zand

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 10.1007/s40615-020-00833-4
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.26.20079756: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data source: Data sources in this study include, 1) publicly available data from USAfacts and the US Census Bureau for COVID-19 cases and county-level demographic data,9,10 2) COVID-19 data reported by each state on their department of health websites,9 3) State Population by Race/Ethnicity data,11,12 and 4) mobility data extracted from Google.13 Variables used in this study include county-level information on total population, mobility, race, poverty level, median income, education, disability, rate of the insured population.
    Race/Ethnicity
    suggested: (SEER Datasets and Software, RRID:SCR_003293)
    Mobility data were extracted from Google as reported on April 05, 2020.
    Google
    suggested: (Google, RRID:SCR_017097)
    Bivariate linear regression adjusted for “State” variables was utilized to test the association between “Death Rate” or “Infection Rate” with independent variables.
    Rate”
    suggested: None
    Statistical analyses were performed using R version 3.6.2.14 and IBM SPSS Statistics 26.15
    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:
    Our study had several limitations; the data was not granular, and we had missingness, especially for smaller and less populated counties. Access to the infected patient information and mortality data was not possible, and only aggregated data were used. Furthermore, many states claimed difficulties in reporting racial/ethnic demographic data due to patients opting-out of providing their racial identification. The lack of clarity resulted in partially reported data for the death and case rate per million reported in this article, due to some states reporting on racial data for one, two, or all the racial variables specified in this study. The infection rate estimate may be underrepresented, as some individuals may have mild symptoms but lacked clinical validation of the infection. Finally, our in-depth analysis was based on only seven states, leading to conclusions that may not be generalizable to other regions.

    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 10.1101/2020.04.26.20079756v1 on medRxiv