Side effects of COVID-19 vaccines and perceptions about COVID-19 and its vaccines in Bangladesh: A Cross-sectional study

  1. Md Mohsin
  2. Sultan Mahmud
  3. Ashraf Uddin Mian
  4. Prottay Hasan
  5. Abdul Muyeed
  6. Md. Taif Ali
  7. Fee Faysal Ahmed
  8. Ariful Islam
  9. Maisha Maliha Rahman
  10. Mahfuza Islam
  11. Md Hasinur Rahaman Khan
  12. M. Shafiqur Rahman

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.jvacx.2022.100207
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.31.22270172: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: The online survey began with the respondents’ informed consent and eligibility verification.
    IRB: Application for an Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was submitted for this study.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    4.1 Strengths and Limitations of the Study: To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to investigate the potential side effects of several (five) COVID-19 vaccines. In addition, the study identified influential factors for experiencing side effects and their severity among the general people of Bangladesh. Furthermore, participants of this study were the general people. Most of the previous studies of this nature were conducted among healthcare workers only. However, there are some limitations of this study. First, due to convenience sampling selection approaches that were part of the online survey approach, there might be some selection biases, such as fewer low education or illiterate participants. Second, since the study was online, voluntary, and self-administered, we cannot confirm the seriousness of all participants while filling out the questionnaire.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.01.31.22270172 on medRxiv