Determinants of SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal testing in a rural community sample susceptible of first infection: the CHRIS COVID-19 study

  1. Daniele Giardiello
  2. Roberto Melotti
  3. Giulia Barbieri
  4. Martin Gögele
  5. Christian X. Weichenberger
  6. Luisa Foco
  7. Daniele Bottigliengo
  8. Laura Barin
  9. Rebecca Lundin
  10. Peter P. Pramstaller
  11. Cristian Pattaro

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 10.1080/20477724.2023.2191232
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2022.01.27.22269941v3 on medRxiv
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.01.27.22269941v2 on medRxiv
  4. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.27.22269941: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Healthcare System of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano/Bozen (deliberation number 53-2020).
    Consent: All participants provided informed consent.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationFrom all the 13,393 CHRIS participants, 1,812 individuals were randomly selected to represent the general adult population of the Val Venosta/Vinschgau district, based on age and sex distribution(20).
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot 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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    In addition to the limited sample size, which prevented the possibility to study higher order interactions, other limitations should be highlighted. First, most information was self-reported, thus some reporting error could not be excluded. Even if individuals were randomly selected by stratification and the analyses accounted for population-representative weights, some selection bias cannot be excluded, although we counteracted it by applying relative sample weights stratified by the age and sex distribution of the target population(4,20). Second, we did not consider availability of and distance to testing sites, which may affect the chance to undergo a test(29). Distance was only available as an average distance at the municipal level, and testing sites could also have changed overtime, depending on the intensity of the pandemic. Third, our study was not designed to incorporate external events such as public health interventions, which could only be approximated by modeling the month of participation. Last, the widespread availability of cheap, rapid, nasal tests through pharmacies, without the need of a medical prescription, made it unfeasible to evaluate the role of general practitioners or other healthcare providers in mediating access to swab tests. We identified December as the month with the highest reporting of SARS-CoV-2 testing, likely due to the mass testing implemented in South Tyrol at the end of November 2020(19). The month in which the questionnaire was filled...

    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.

  5. Version published to 10.1101/2022.01.27.22269941v1 on medRxiv