Nucleocapsid and spike antibody responses following virologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection: an observational analysis in the Virus Watch community cohort
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2022.02.01.22270269: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics Consent: 10 Individuals that were 18 years and over within eligible households could consent to participate through provision of valid, electronic consent. Sex as a biological variable Sex was limited to male and female categories. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Antibodies Sentences Resources The proportion of anti-N positive samples, with 95% confidence intervals, and median antibody levels were calculated for each time period category. anti-Nsuggested: NoneResults 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 Limitat…SciScore for 10.1101/2022.02.01.22270269: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics Consent: 10 Individuals that were 18 years and over within eligible households could consent to participate through provision of valid, electronic consent. Sex as a biological variable Sex was limited to male and female categories. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Antibodies Sentences Resources The proportion of anti-N positive samples, with 95% confidence intervals, and median antibody levels were calculated for each time period category. anti-Nsuggested: NoneResults 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:15 There are limitations however, as a large proportion of the data is self-reported and therefore susceptible to reporting bias, as participants may only volunteer information they feel is relevant or necessary. Self-reporting is also susceptible to data entry errors. This led to some samples being excluded from any analyses based on erroneous reporting of vaccination status. Furthermore, a large proportion of the data in this analysis (e.g. medical conditions, medications) is only collected at registration, so did not account for changes in participant’s health or medications. The dates of PCR confirmed infection however, were SGSS data, allowing accurate calculation of time between infection and blood test. Those who did not have a positive PCR confirmed infection according to the linkage data were excluded from the analysis, therefore further reducing the sample size. The earliest positive PCR result was used in the analysis and subsequent PCR results were excluded. Therefore we are unable to report on subsequent asymptomatic reinfections/re-exposure which may boost antibody levels. 19,27
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.
-
