SARS-CoV-2 transmission potential and rural-urban disease burden disparities across Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, March 2020 — May 2021

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.18.21268032: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Ethics: The Georgia Southern University Institutional Review Board made a non-human subject determination for this project (H20364) under the G8 exemption category according to the Code of Federal Regulations Title 45 Part 46.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    23 The EpiEstim package version 2.2-4 in R version 4.1.0 was used for the analysis.
    EpiEstim
    suggested: (EpiEstim, RRID:SCR_018538)

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code and data.


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations: First, the uncertainty associated with data accuracy and quality was a critical issue to consider. Data quality can be affected by testing policies of each state and the efficiency of the states’ case reporting systems. Second, the original dataset contained the dates of the case report and not the dates of infection or symptoms onset. Therefore, the epidemic curve was shifted backward by nine days to account for the incubation period (mean, 6 days) and delay to testing (median, 3 days). This method was considered “tolerable” by Gostic et al.25 We acknowledge that we did not use deconvolution,47 which was more computationally demanding, to approximate the date of infection. Third, this is an ecological study that identifies association but cannot demonstrate causality between public health policy and changes in Rt. We were not able to conduct individual-level analysis due to the lack of demographic information of each case in aggregated data; hence, we could not investigate demographic risk factors for COVID-19 infection. Likewise, public health policies were implemented at a population level. Individuals’ compliance to policies might vary. Fourth, the comparison between three different states, in the same manner, may not be very accurate as test reporting could vary from state to state. Fifth, for county-level analysis, we did not choose county with population size below the median for comparison, because in our preliminary analysis (not shown), the low daily ca...

    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.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    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.