Protection against Covid-19 by BNT162b2 Booster across Age Groups
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
- Evaluated articles (Rapid Reviews Infectious Diseases)
Abstract
Article activity feed
-
-
Jorge Salinas
Review 2: "Protection Across Age Groups of BNT162b2 Vaccine Booster against Covid-19"
This paper claims that compared to people who only received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, those who additionally received the booster dose are less likely to have SARS CoV 2 infection, severe illness, and death. Both reviewers agree on the robustness of the study methods.
-
Arthur Reingold
Review 1: "Protection Across Age Groups of BNT162b2 Vaccine Booster against Covid-19"
This paper claims that compared to people who only received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, those who additionally received the booster dose are less likely to have SARS CoV 2 infection, severe illness, and death. Both reviewers agree on the robustness of the study methods.
-
Strength of evidence
Reviewers: Arthur Reingold (UC Berkeley) | 📘📘📘📘📘
Jorge Salinas (Stanford University) | 📗📗📗📗◻️ -
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.07.21264626: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: For individuals who were abroad in part of the study period, we excluded days at risk and COVID-19 infections during their stay abroad and the 10 days following their return to Israel. OVERSIGHT: The study was approved by the institutional review board of the Sheba Medical Center (Helsinki approval number: SMC-8228-21). Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not 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: An explicit …SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.07.21264626: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: For individuals who were abroad in part of the study period, we excluded days at risk and COVID-19 infections during their stay abroad and the 10 days following their return to Israel. OVERSIGHT: The study was approved by the institutional review board of the Sheba Medical Center (Helsinki approval number: SMC-8228-21). Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not 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: 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.
-
