Diagnostic value of cutaneous manifestation of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection*

  1. A. Visconti
  2. V. Bataille
  3. N. Rossi
  4. J. Kluk
  5. R. Murphy
  6. S. Puig
  7. R. Nambi
  8. R. C. E. Bowyer
  9. B. Murray
  10. A. Bournot
  11. J. Wolf
  12. S. Ourselin
  13. C. J. Steves
  14. T. D. Spector
  15. M. Falchi

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 10.1111/bjd.19807
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.07.10.20150656v2 on medRxiv
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.10.20150656: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: Of the 11,544 surveyees passing this quality control, 2,328 uploaded a photo of their rash, and gave consent for sharing.
    IRB: Ethical statement: The study has been approved by the King’s College London Research Ethics Committee REMAS ID 18210, review reference LRS-19/20-18210.
    RandomizationFrom these, we randomly selected 260 photos from both sexes, with either a positive SARS-CoV-2 test or reporting at least one of the three classic symptoms.
    BlindingThe 260 photos were blindly assessed and independently categorised by four experienced dermatologists.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variableWe excluded users with body mass index (BMI) outside the range of 15 to 55 kg/m2 (for users 16 years old or older) or outside two standard deviation from the sample’s mean for each age (for users younger than 16 years old), pregnant women, and users who did not report their sex (Supplementary Figure 1).

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Participants were recruited through social media outreach or invitations from the investigators of long-running cohort studies to their volunteers within the newly established COronavirus Pandemic Epidemiology (COPE) Consortium10.
    COPE
    suggested: (COPE, RRID:SCR_009153)

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code and data.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations: A major limitation of this study is the self-reported nature of the data. However, we believe that the presence of a rash, especially if symptomatic, is less subjective and more specific than other symptoms such as fatigue, headaches, or persistent cough. Of the photos uploaded by the surveyees and blindly assessed by four dermatologists, only 14% were classified as definitively non-COVID-19-related dermatological conditions, suggesting that the large majority of surveyees (86%) were able to self-identify cutaneous manifestation likely to be related to COVID-19 infection. This may mean that the total number of COVID-19-related skin rashes self-reported through the app and the survey may have been slightly overestimated. On the other hand, many of the app users may have failed to realise the relevance of cutaneous symptoms and not have reported them if not accompanied by other more known COVID-19 symptoms. Given the very large number of users of both the app and the survey, we are confident that potential errors deriving by the analysis of data reported by 336,847 users are likely reflected by larger standard errors of the estimates, rather than on the point estimate of their effects, as already postulated in other large and successful biobank resources (e.g., the UK Biobank), which are also based on self-reported health-related data. Second, our study sample is not fully representative of the general population, as it represents a self-selected group of individua...

    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.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2020.07.10.20150656v1 on medRxiv