Development and validation of a tool to appraise guidelines on SARS-CoV-2 infection control strategies in healthcare workers

  1. Ashwin Subramaniam
  2. Mallikarjuna Ponnapa Reddy
  3. Umesh Kadam
  4. Alexander Zubarev
  5. Zheng Lim
  6. Chris Anstey
  7. Shailesh Bihari
  8. Jumana Haji
  9. Jinghang Luo
  10. Saikat Mitra
  11. Kollengode Ramanathan
  12. Arvind Rajamani
  13. Francesca Rubulotta
  14. Erik Svensk
  15. Kiran Shekar

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.aucc.2021.06.015
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.14.20130682: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    BlindingGuidelines allocation was random, regardless of the reviewers’ background or preferences, however a reliable blinding was not feasible for the study.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Development of a PPE guideline appraisal tool: Validation of the PPE Guideline Appraisal tool: We conducted a literature search using Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled
    Pubmed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    Embase
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    National COVID-19 specific guidelines that were not published in medical journals were found on the internet using Google and Bing search engines or obtained from the authors’ professional contacts in these countries by personal correspondence.
    Google
    suggested: (Google, RRID:SCR_017097)

    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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 10.1101/2020.06.14.20130682v1 on medRxiv