Article activity feed

  1. Review 3: "Adverse reactions to BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in medical staffs with a history of allergy"

    This study claims that although the frequency of adverse reactions was higher in individuals with a subjective history of allergy, vaccination is considered safe. Reviewers agree with the importance of the idea this paper addresses but raise some key issues regarding its methods.

    Read the original source
    Was this evaluation helpful?
  2. Review 1: "Adverse reactions to BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in medical staffs with a history of allergy"

    This study claims that although the frequency of adverse reactions was higher in individuals with a subjective history of allergy, vaccination is considered safe. Reviewers agree with the importance of the idea this paper addresses but raise some key issues regarding its methods.

    Read the original source
    Was this evaluation helpful?
  3. Review 2: "Adverse reactions to BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in medical staffs with a history of allergy"

    This study claims that although the frequency of adverse reactions was higher in individuals with a subjective history of allergy, vaccination is considered safe. Reviewers agree with the importance of the idea this paper addresses but raise some key issues regarding its methods.

    Read the original source
    Was this evaluation helpful?
  4. Strength of evidence

    Reviewers: Kimberly Blumenthal (Massachusetts General Hospital) | 📒📒📒 ◻️◻️
    Tiago Azenha Rama (University Hospital Center of São João) | 📒📒📒 ◻️◻️
    Viktorija Erdeljic Turk (University of Zagreb) | 📒📒📒 ◻️◻️

    Read the original source
    Was this evaluation helpful?
  5. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.09.13.21263473: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: The Institutional Ethics Committee of the Yamagata University Faculty of Medicine approved this study (approval number; 2021-130, approval date: June 29, 2021).
    Consent: The opt-out method was used to obtain informed consent, which is available on our website.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The questionnaire was designed using the free web-based Google Forms software.
    Google Forms
    suggested: None
    Statistical analyses were performed using JMP version 11.0 software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).
    SAS Institute
    suggested: (Statistical Analysis System, RRID:SCR_008567)

    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:
    There are several limitations to our study. The first limitation is that the survey was an internet-based questionnaire, and symptoms and allergy history were self-reported. Particularly, it is unclear whether the diagnosis of allergic diseases is correct. Secondly, not many subjects had a history of anaphylaxis or adverse reactions to vaccinations; thus, the statistical reliability of the study may not be high. Thirdly, it is possible that some of the staff did not receive the vaccine because of a history of allergy. Therefore, it is possible that some people with a history of allergies may not have participated in this study. It is expected that large-scale and detailed data on adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccination will be accumulated in the future, and the advantages and disadvantages of vaccination, especially for people with a history of allergy, will be verified. In conclusion, although the tolerance of BNT162b2 was worse in individuals with allergies than those without, no serious adverse reactions such as anaphylaxis or death were observed. For those who are hesitant about COVID-19 vaccination because of allergy, data from a large adverse reaction study can be expected to be very helpful. We hope that the results of this study will be used to successfully complete the vaccination.

    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.

    Read the original source
    Was this evaluation helpful?