Vaccine effectiveness of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 against COVID-19 in a socially vulnerable community in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: a test-negative design study

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.16.21265095: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: This study was approved by the National Research Ethics Committee (IRB/CONEP) (CAAE - 49726921.6.0000.5248).
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    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 has some limitations. First, we could not evaluate second dose effectiveness and waning because of the vaccination campaign and enough follow-up. Second, data on genome sequencing from all test-positives was not available. However, our study analyzed data in a period of high transmission rates of the Gamma and Delta variants in the community. Third, we could not evaluate the vaccine effectiveness for preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations or severe outcomes. Finally, although we excluded previous confirmed infections, it is expected that the community has a high attack rate and so the unvaccinated could have an unmeasured protection level, underestimating the vaccine effectiveness. One-dose of ChAdOx1 was effective on reducing symptomatic COVID-19 in using data from a community surveillance program, where there was a broad testing strategy without any cost to an overall young vulnerable population in a group of favelas in Brazil.

    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.