The mystery of COVID-19 reinfections: A global systematic review and meta-analysis

  1. Rubaid Azhar Dhillon
  2. Mohammad Aadil Qamar
  3. Jaleed Ahmed Gilani
  4. Omar Irfan
  5. Usama Waqar
  6. Mir Ibrahim Sajid
  7. Syed Faisal Mahmood

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.103130
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.07.22.21260972: (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

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Search methods: An exhaustive literature review was conducted on major databases: PubMed, WHO COVID-19 Database, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) Database, Google Scholar, manual searches of leading medical journals, and a pre-print server, medRxiv, covering the timeline of January 1st, 2020, to March 16th, 2021.
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    Embase
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    Google Scholar
    suggested: (Google Scholar, RRID:SCR_008878)

    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:
    This review has some limitations, such as the small sample sizes analyzed from each country except for China that had 73% (n=423) of the total included cases. The majority of these cases were reported from Wuhan or the Hubei province, where the gross domestic product per capita is less than half of that of Beijing and Shanghai[105]. Therefore, the findings of studies from China may be generalizable to the socioeconomic and health development status of other middle-income countries and not to high-income nations. This review can be improved by sampling larger series and including IPD, if available, to predict the outcome of COVID-19 illness based off epidemiological trends dramatically reducing hospitalization time, given the lack of sufficient healthcare resources in low-middle income countries. Therefore, a selection bias remains when considering LMICs where admitted hospital patients could be in a more critical state reporting a higher mortality rate. Our review on reinfections in COVID-19 also comes at a pertinent time as countries, especially the developing world, suffer a repeated wave of infection[106]. At this time, public health initiatives aimed at removing complacency are the need of hour, and one of the key messages that needs to be given is that reinfection is a reality and vaccines along with social distancing remain the key in fighting the pandemic. A recently published online longitudinal survey [107] in 23 countries of high, middle and low income, across 4 con...

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.07.22.21260972 on medRxiv