Mortality after surgery with SARS-CoV-2 infection in England: a population-wide epidemiological study

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.17.21251928: (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 AnalysisA sample size of 2 million patients, with an allocation ratio of 0.01, and an alpha of 0.05 would give a 100% power to detect a 10% difference in the relative risk of mortality among patients with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Analyses were conducted using Python (version 3.7.5) and graphs made in R (V4.0.2, R-project, Vienna).
    Python
    suggested: (IPython, RRID:SCR_001658)

    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 analysis also has some limitations. It possible that our data underestimate the true incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among surgical patients, particularly amongst those undergoing day case procedures, which would lead to under-representation of asymptomatic patients who are less likely to die. However, we only included in-hospital deaths, and our findings will therefore underestimate the true mortality risk. In conclusion, we have shown that the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among surgical patients is low and the risk of postoperative mortality among patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection is very small. However, where it occurs, SARS-CoV-2 infection among surgical patients is associated with a very high risk of death.

    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.