Public Awareness of and Support for the Use of Wastewater for SARS-CoV-2 Monitoring: A Community Survey in Louisville, Kentucky

  1. Rochelle H. Holm
  2. J. Michael Brick
  3. Alok R. Amraotkar
  4. Joy L. Hart
  5. Anish Mukherjee
  6. Jacob Zeigler
  7. Adrienne M. Bushau-Sprinkle
  8. Lauren B. Anderson
  9. Kandi L. Walker
  10. Daymond Talley
  11. Rachel J. Keith
  12. Shesh N. Rai
  13. Kenneth E. Palmer
  14. Aruni Bhatnagar
  15. Ted Smith

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1021/acsestwater.1c00405
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.19.21264954: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: One group of participants was invited to enroll in the study by a postal mailing and was given an online code to consent and complete a battery of online surveys and then a few days later participated in clinical testing.
    IRB: Data collection: Data were collected from August 25 to September 1, 2021. 2.8. Ethics: The University of Louisville Institutional Review Board approved this project as Human Subjects Research (IRB number: 20.0393 and 15.1260).
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationProbability sampling: For the probability sample, households were contacted such that one adult within the household was randomly selected to participate.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    For this work, only demographic, COVID-19 antibody status and wastewater monitoring community survey results are reported for a single wave of this serial testing. 2.1.
    COVID-19
    suggested: None

    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).

    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 10.1101/2021.10.19.21264954v1 on medRxiv