Day-by-day symptoms following positive and negative PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 in non-hospitalized healthcare workers: A 90-day follow-up study

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.02.21252437: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: Questionnaire: After giving informed consent, participants received a short baseline questionnaire and then a short text message on their mobile phone or by e-mail every day at 3:30 pm linking to a questionnaire regarding the presence (yes, no) of the following symptoms within the previous 24 hours: cough, sore throat, headache, fever, muscle aches and pains, dyspnoea, and reduced or lost sense of taste and smell (available in supplementary data).
    RandomizationBecause the indication for being tested, testing rate, and infection rate in the study population changed rapidly over time (Supplementary Figure S1) we for each participant tested positive, randomly selected three referents with replacement among participants tested negative matching on sex and testing date (+/- 2 days).
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot 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:
    Limitations and strengths: The major limitation is the study participants’ awareness of their test results before reporting symptoms, which is expected to have inflated reporting among the test-positive participants. Such an effect is probably strongest for loss of sense of taste and smell that has contracted public awareness worldwide and nationally.23,24 Another limitation is only few observations during the first weeks after the test. Hereby the study primarily addresses the course of symptoms after the initial acute phase of the infection. The prospective design with daily collection of symptom reports that provides information with high temporal resolution is a major strength and makes us able to depict the courses of symptoms day by day. Another strength is the inclusion of a reference group of test-negative participants recruited within the same population as the test-positive health-care workers and tested with the same kit at the same time. This allows us to take symptoms among the test-positive participants not attributed to SARS-CoV-2 infection into consideration and also to account for rapid changes in indications for testing, infection rate, and testing rate in the population. Matching on sex and adjustment for age, smoking, and occupation is expected to have further reduced potential confounding. Our access to the results of all SARS-CoV-2 tests conducted by the Health Authorities on all samples obtained in the Central Denmark Region during the study period inde...

    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.