Community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in England from April to November, 2020: results from the ONS Coronavirus Infection Survey
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.26.20219428: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.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:Limitations of this study: An important limitation of this study is that the number of people in the community that test positive is low, limiting power and leading to relatively large uncertainty around estimates, and meaning that our multilevel regression model was not able to incorporate likely correlation within households. However, …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.26.20219428: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.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:Limitations of this study: An important limitation of this study is that the number of people in the community that test positive is low, limiting power and leading to relatively large uncertainty around estimates, and meaning that our multilevel regression model was not able to incorporate likely correlation within households. However, sensitivity analyses suggested that within-household clustering did not have a large impact on our results. Furthermore, while we adjusted for potential non-representativeness in terms of age, sex and region, there may be other factors for which we do not have detailed information about population distributions that also are associated with testing positive. If these are over-or under-represented in the survey this could have resulted in some residual bias. We did forwards and backwards imputation for missing data, reflecting the relatively short timescales of the study. Another limitation is that, in the absence of a true gold standard, we do not know the test sensitivity and specificity, making it difficult to assess what the true prevalence is. However, as detailed above the true specificity is likely very close to 100%The data cannot inform about the test sensitivity without providing a very informative prior on the true prevalence.30 However, this should not affect trends in prevalence over time.
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.
-
-
