Medical vulnerability of individuals with Down syndrome to severe COVID-19–data from the Trisomy 21 Research Society and the UK ISARIC4C survey

  1. Anke Hüls
  2. Alberto C.S. Costa
  3. Mara Dierssen
  4. R. Asaad Baksh
  5. Stefania Bargagna
  6. Nicole T. Baumer
  7. Ana Claudia Brandão
  8. Angelo Carfi
  9. Maria Carmona-Iragui
  10. Brian Allen Chicoine
  11. Sujay Ghosh
  12. Monica Lakhanpaul
  13. Coral Manso
  14. Miguel-Angel Mayer
  15. Maria del Carmen Ortega
  16. Diego Real de Asua
  17. Anne-Sophie Rebillat
  18. Lauren Ashley Russell
  19. Giuseppina Sgandurra
  20. Diletta Valentini
  21. Stephanie L. Sherman
  22. Andre Strydom

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.eclinm.2021.100769
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.03.20225359: (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 Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The survey was implemented through REDCap 20,21, a survey and database management system, and was hosted at Emory University.
    REDCap
    suggested: (REDCap, RRID:SCR_003445)

    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:
    The primary limitation of this study is that not all of the COVID-19 cases were confirmed by COVID-19-specific laboratory tests. Given that our survey was launched at the beginning of the pandemic when testing was scarce, we would have lost more than 20% of our cases (particularly from Spain, France, and Italy) if we were to include only individuals with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Nonetheless, the comparison with individuals from the general population was restricted to patients hospitalized with COVID-19, providing an added level of confidence for the clinical diagnosis even when laboratory tests were not reported. Another limitation of our study is the inclusion of cases from different countries and thus different health systems. Some countries had more COVID-19 cases than others, health care systems differ substantially between countries (e.g. India versus Western European countries) and some countries experienced a surge in cases later than others, so that they had more time to prepare and develop treatment strategies. To address this potential bias, we conducted the comparison to the general population for cases that were matched based on age, gender and ethnicity; and adjusted the association analyses with risk factors for hospitalization and mortality for country of residence. The comparison with data from the general population also has some limitations. The inclusion criteria are different between studies due to limited testing capacity 22–24. Furthermore, we cou...

    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 10.1101/2020.11.03.20225359v1 on medRxiv