Closed doors: Predictors of stress, anxiety, depression, and PTSD during the onset of COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil

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 10.1101/2021.08.18.21262061: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: The advertisements stated that the survey was anonymous, and participants had to give consent to take part in the study.
    IRB: Missingness were treated by pairwise and listwise methods in bivariate and multivariate analyses, respectively. 2.6 Ethical considerations: The study was approved by the National Research Ethics Committee (CONEP; CAAE: 30420620.5.0000.5346).
    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:
    This study must be understood considering its limitations. First, this is an internet-based survey in which convenience sample bias may limit its external validity. It does not represent northern regions of the country and, as several surveys of similar method, most participants are white wealthier females. Hence, extrapolations of the findings to other sociodemographic characteristics may not apply. Nonetheless, the sample is from an underrepresented area of the world, in a country with an important impact of the pandemic, which will be useful to compose the assessment of the global mental health outcomes of SARS-CoV-2. Second, all the pre-pandemic information was collected retrospectively. We attempt to minimize this by asking questions regarding current information, such as employment, living conditions and diagnosis, that are not likely be misled by recall bias. Third, it was not possible to evaluate if symptoms are clinically relevant to infer an increase incidence of mental illness. The symptomatic assessment utility lies on assessment of distress oscillation and comparability across the globe, using instruments validated in similar samples and widely used in other studies on the same topic. Lastly, our current findings were able to put some light on relevant variables that, at the initial months of COVID-19 pandemic, appear to have a crucial role on symptoms of anxiety, depression, stress, and post-traumatic stress. It was shown that self-perception of suffering was hi...

    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.