1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.08.21258132: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: The trial is conducted in accordance with the principles of the International Conference on Harmonisation–Good Clinical Practice guidelines and approved by the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee (ref: 20/EE/0101).
    Consent: Written informed consent was obtained from all patients, or a legal representative if they were too unwell or unable to provide consent.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationStudy design and participants: The Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 therapy (RECOVERY) trial is an investigator-initiated, individually randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial to evaluate the effects of potential treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.
    BlindingAs the trial progressed, the trial steering committee, whose members were unaware of the results of the trial comparisons, determined that sufficient patients should be enrolled to provide at least 90% power at a two-sided significance level of 1% to detect a clinically relevant proportional reduction in 28-day mortality of 12.5% between the two groups.
    Power AnalysisAs the trial progressed, the trial steering committee, whose members were unaware of the results of the trial comparisons, determined that sufficient patients should be enrolled to provide at least 90% power at a two-sided significance level of 1% to detect a clinically relevant proportional reduction in 28-day mortality of 12.5% between the two groups.

    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:
    The trial also had some limitations. Detailed information on radiological or physiological outcomes was not collected. Although this randomised trial is open label (i.e., participants and local hospital staff are aware of the assigned treatment), the primary and secondary outcomes are unambiguous and were ascertained without bias through linkage to routine health records. However, it cannot be excluded that reporting of thromboembolic and bleeding events might have been influenced by knowledge of treatment allocation. Nevertheless, the proportional effects of aspirin on these events were very similar to those reported in previous large clinical trials of aspirin in people with prior cardiovascular disease.6 The RECOVERY trial only studied hospitalised COVID-19 patients and, therefore, is not able to provide evidence on the safety and efficacy of aspirin used in other patient groups. Further studies to identify the safety and efficacy of aspirin in non-hospitalised patients are needed and are ongoing. In summary, the results of this large, randomised trial do not support the addition of aspirin to standard thromboprophylaxis or therapeutic anticoagulation in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:

    IdentifierStatusTitle
    NCT04381936RecruitingRandomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy


    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.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • 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.

    Read the original source
    Was this evaluation helpful?