Timeliness of reporting of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence results and their utility for infectious disease surveillance
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2022.02.17.22271099: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not 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:The slow reporting of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies overall emphasizes limitations in their relevance for public health action. The landscape of infection and immunity can change drastically in the median 154 days from the end of sampling to results …
SciScore for 10.1101/2022.02.17.22271099: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not 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:The slow reporting of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies overall emphasizes limitations in their relevance for public health action. The landscape of infection and immunity can change drastically in the median 154 days from the end of sampling to results release, particularly in an era of rapidly spreading SARS-CoV-2 variants and mass vaccination.18 Notably, some of the results from these studies are made available to public health agencies directly before being released publicly — for example, many studies of blood donors and residual sera in Canada. While this improves the ability of the agency in question to act on the data, the closed sharing of results hinders interpretation and action by other stakeholders. Firstly, public health agencies who the data has not been shared with (e.g., federal authorities, for studies done at a state/province level), which limits the coordination between levels of government that is crucial in a pandemic setting.19 Secondly, academic research groups, who have done secondary analysis and modeling that has generated key information during the pandemic.20 Finally, global synthesis and comparison initiatives: where this has been carried out for seroprevalence, these delays have caused limitations in the synthesis that can be done.3 We show that peer-reviewed manuscripts are released particularly slowly, with a median time-to-publication of about seven months. While many medical journals have expedited publication processes for COVID-19 research...
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.
-
