Trauma-spectrum symptoms among the Italian general population in the time of the COVID-19 outbreak

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.01.20118935: (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

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    All analyses were performed using Stata 16® (StataCorp).
    StataCorp
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    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 has several limitations. It is not a representative population sample. Social-network sampling strategy has its pros and cons. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was essential to collect a large sample in a very short time, as a part of a long-term monitoring programme of mental health outcomes in the general population (Rossi et al., 2020b). However, this web-based survey may have introduced a number of potential biases, including self-selection bias as suggested by the large disproportion in the gender ratio and the unusually high rate of self-reported lifetime prevalence of a history of mental illness or psychiatric/psychological treatment at around 28%. It might indicate that an already more vulnerable group in the population is more inclined to fill in a survey on mental health effects of the pandemic, and thus lead to an overestimation the prevalence of traumatic-spectrum symptoms. Furthermore, only a limited number of instruments could be included in the survey. Ideally a larger battery would have been included to assess concurrent and divergent validity of the GPS. Also, self-report instruments inherently introduce measuring biases, especially in the absence of normative data. Another major limitation is the absence of clinical interviews or other normative cut-offs, that would have allowed to estimate a prevalence of PTSD or clinically relevant PTSS. A strength of the study is its large sample size, and the timely data collection around the peak o...

    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.

    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.