Community-Based Phenotypic Study of Safety, Tolerability, Reactogenicity and Immunogenicity of Emergency-Use-Authorized Vaccines Against COVID-19 and Viral Shedding Potential of Post-Vaccination Infections: Protocol for an Ambispective study

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

1

The outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) led to a global pandemic that disrupted and impacted lives in unprecedented ways. Within less than a year after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines developed by several research teams were emergency-use authorized and made their way to distribution sites across the US and other countries. COVID-19 vaccines were tested in clinical trials with thousands of participants before authorization, and were administered to over a billion people across the globe in the following 6 months. Post-authorization safety monitoring was performed using pre-existing systems (such as the World Health Organization’s platform VigiBase or US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, VAERS) and newly developed post-vaccination health checkers (such as V-safe in the US). Vaccinated individuals were also posting their experiences on multiple social media groups created on Facebook, Reddit, Telegram and other platforms, but the groups were often removed as “proliferating false claims”. These forms of reporting are susceptible to biases and misclassifications and do not reach all vaccinated individuals, raising questions about risks of exacerbating health inequalities as well as security and privacy vulnerabilities.

The objective of this paper is to present the protocol for a community-based participatory research approach enabling long-term monitoring of health effects, strengthening community participation via transparent messaging and support, and addressing challenges of transitioning to a new normal.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.28.21256779: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

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

    IdentifierStatusTitle
    NCT04832932RecruitingThe COVID-19 Back-to-Normal Study


    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.